Стил Досье

Стил Досье (стр. 1)

Стил досье , также известный как Досье Трампа -Руссия , является спорным докладом о политической оппозиции, составленном Кристофером Стилом , который был опубликован без разрешения в 2017 году как незаконченное 35-страничное сборник «незавершенного и потенциально не поддающегося проверке» Сырые разведывательные отчеты - «не установленные факты, но отправная точка для дальнейшего расследования». Статус правдивости многих обвинений до сих пор неизвестен, поскольку усилия по подтверждению обвинений были недолгими, ограниченными и слабыми, причем ФБР прекратило все усилия, чтобы подтвердить досье в мае 2017 года, когда расследование Мюллера приняло расследование России.

Досье было написано с июня по декабрь 2016 года и содержит обвинения в проступках, заговоре и сотрудничестве между президентской кампанией Дональда Трампа и правительством России до и во время избирательной кампании 2016 года. Стил был первым, кто предупредил, что Россия стремилась избрать Трампа, и несколько других ключевых обвинений в досье, сделанных в июне 2016 года о усилиях российского правительства по избранию Трампа, были позже описаны как «предварительные» Поскольку они были подтверждены шесть месяцев спустя в отчете за январь 2017 года Управлением директора National Intelligence и доклад Мюллера , а именно то, что Владимир Путин предпочитал Трампа над Хиллари Клинтон; что он лично приказал «кампанию« Влияние », чтобы нанести ущерб кампании Клинтона и« подорвать общественную веру в демократический процесс США »; что он заказал кибератаки на обеих сторонах; И что многие чиновники и партнеры кампании Трампа имели многочисленные скрытные контакты с российскими чиновниками и агентами .

Он был основан на информации из изначально анонимных источников, известных автору, по контрразведки специалист Кристофер Стил, и прародичный засвидец, Игорь Данченко Стил, бывший глава Российской стойки британской разведки (MI6), писал отчет для частной следственной фирмы Fusion GPS , который был выплачен кампанией Хиллари Клинтон и Демократическим национальным комитетом (DNC). В 17 докладах досье утверждается, что члены кампании Трампа и российские оперативники сговорились в сотрудничестве в вмешательстве России в избирательных выборах, чтобы принести пользу Трампу. Это также утверждает, что Россия стремилась нанести ущерб кандидатуре Хиллари Клинтон. Он был опубликован BuzzFeed News 10 января 2017 года без разрешения Стила. Их решение опубликовать отчеты без проверки обвинений подвергся критике со стороны журналистов. Тем не менее, судья защищал BuzzFeed действия , поскольку общественность имеет право знать, чтобы оно могло «осуществлять эффективный надзор за правительством».

Разведывательное сообщество Соединенных Штатов и большинство экспертов с осторожностью относились к досье из -за его неверных обвинений. Скомпилируя досье, Стил передал свои выводы как британской, так и американской разведывательной службе . Американское разведывательное сообщество серьезно относилось к обвинениям, и Федеральное бюро расследований (ФБР) исследовали каждую линию досье, идентифицировали и говорили по крайней мере с двумя из источников Стила. В докладе Мюллера содержалось проходящие ссылки на некоторые утверждения досье, но мало упоминаются о его более сенсационных претензиях.

В то время как документы Стила сыграли важную роль в первоначальном подчеркивании общего дружелюбия между Трампом и администрацией Путина, достоверность конкретных обвинений сильно варьируется. Некоторые были публично подтверждены, Другие правдоподобны, но не подтверждены, не подтверждены, А некоторые сомневаются в ретроспективе, но не строго опровергнуты. В то время как досье играло центральную и важную роль в поиске ордеров FISA на Картере Пейдж , Он не сыграл никакой роли в оценке разведывательного сообщества о российских действиях на выборах 2016 года, И это не было триггером для открытия расследования России о том, координировала ли кампания Трампа с вмешательством российского правительства на президентских выборах 2016 года. Досье является фактором в нескольких теориях заговора, продвигаемых Трампом и его сторонники.

История

Две исследовательские операции и путаница между ними

Оппозиционное исследование, проведенное GPS Fusion GPS на Дональде Трамп, было в двух разных операциях, каждая из которых имеет различный клиент. Сначала были республиканцы, финансируемые Вашингтоном Free Beacon . Затем появились демократы, финансируемые DNC и кампанией Клинтона .

• Республиканская операция , с октября 2015 года по май 2016 года, была посвящена внутренней деятельности Трампа и развлечению Трампа; был выполнен Fusion GPS; и использовал Уэйн Барретт файлы и общественные источники . Сразу после публикации досье средства массовой информации иногда ложно предполагали, что досье начиналось как продукт этого исследования, поэтому Free Beacon выпустил это заявление: «Ни один из рабочих продуктов, который получен свободный маяк, не появляется в Dossier Sleele».
• Демократическая операция с апреля 2016 года по декабрь 2016 года была сосредоточена на российских связях Трампа; был субподряд на Стил/Орбис; и использовал собственную сеть источников и общественных источников Стила. Только эта вторая операция произвела досье.

С апреля по начало мая 2016 года в Вашингтоне Free Beacon и кампании DNC/Clinton независимо были как клиенты GPS Fusion. Это совпадение способствовало путанице средств массовой информации.

Республиканская операция не производит досье

В октябре 2015 года, до официального начала республиканской первичной кампании 2016 года , основатели Fusion GPS искали политическую работу и написали электронное письмо «большому консервативному донору, которого они знали, который не любил Трампа, [и] они были наняты». Он договорился, чтобы они использовали веб -сайт «Вашингтон свободный Бикон» , американский веб -сайт консервативной политической журналистики , для их общей оппозиционной исследования нескольких кандидатов в президенты от республиканцев, включая Трампа. Он в основном финансируется республиканским донором Полом Сингером . Свободный маяк и певец были «частью консервативного движения, не связанного с ними ». Хотя Сингер был большим сторонником Марко Рубио , Рубио отрицал какое -либо участие в первоначальных исследованиях и найме Fusion GPS.

В начале своего расследования они получили помощь от расследовательного репортера Уэйна Барретта , который дал им свои файлы на Трамп. Они содержали выводы о «прошлых отношениях Трампа, включая проблемы налога и банкротства, потенциальные связи с организованной преступностью и многочисленные юридические запутывания. Они также показали, что у Трампа было необычайно большое количество связей с русскими с сомнительным фоном».

В течение нескольких месяцев Fusion GPS собирал информацию о Трампе, сосредоточившись на его бизнесе и развлечениях. Когда Трамп стал предполагаемым кандидатом 3 мая 2016 года, Консервативный донор перестал финансировать исследования на нем.

Из -за путаницы в СМИ по поводу того, кто произвел досье, в октябре 2017 года Free Beacon выступил с заявлением, чтобы развенчать некоторые ложные предположения:

Вся работа, которую GPS Fusion GPS, предоставленная бесплатному маяку, основана на общественных источниках, и ни один из рабочих продуктов, который получен свободный маяк, не появляется в Dossier Sleele. Свободный маяк не знал или не знал или связывался с досье Стила, не платил за досье и никогда не контактировал, не имел никакого знания или предоставления оплаты за любую работу, выполняемую Кристофером Стилом. Мы также не знали о отношениях между GPS Fusion и Демократическим национальным комитетом, Перкинсом Кой и кампанией Клинтона.

Хотя источник финансирования Dossier уже был зарегистрирован в течение года назад, и бесплатный маяк выступил с заявлением на этот счет в октябре 2017 года, (AP) 2 февраля 2018 года Ассошиэйтед Пресс (AP) способствовала путанице в его финансировании, заявив, что досье «изначально финансировалось» Вашингтонским свободным маяком , поэтому AP опубликовал исправление на следующий день: «Хотя первый Шпион, Кристофер Стил, был нанят фирмой, которая первоначально финансировалась Вашингтонским свободным маяком, он не начал работу над проектом до тех пор, пока демократические группы не начали его финансировать ».

К весне 2016 года исследователи из Fusion GPS настолько встревожились тем, что они уже узнали о Трампе, что чувствовали необходимость «делать все возможное, чтобы не допустить Трампа в Белом доме».

Демократическая операция производит досье

Наем и первоначальные отчеты

Вторая операция исследований оппозиции была косвенно профинансирована DNC и кампанией Клинтона , работая через своего адвоката Марка Элиаса из Перкинса Кой . В письме в октябре 2017 года генеральный юрисконсульт Perkins Coie Мэтью Герингер рассказал, как в марте 2016 года Fusion GPS обратился к Perkins Coie и, зная кампанию Клинтона и DNC, были его клиентами, спросили, хотят ли его клиенты платить GPS Fusion «продолжить исследование Что касается тогдашнего кандидата в президенты Дональда Трампа, исследования, которые GPS Fusion провели для одного или нескольких других клиентов во время первичного конкурса республиканцев ». В апреле 2016 года Элиас нанял GPS Fusion для проведения оппозиционных исследований по Трампу.

Соучредитель Fusion GPS Гленн Р. Симпсон имел некоторые оговорки, так как ему не понравилась идея помощи Хиллари Клинтон. В электронном письме Симпсон сказал: «Единственный способ, которым я мог видеть работу в HRC, это если бы он против Трампа».

В июне 2016 года В рамках своей работы для Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS нанял Orbis Business Intelligence , частной британской разведывательной фирмы, чтобы изучить связи между Трампом и Россией. Орбис соучредитель Кристофер Стил , отставной британский офицер MI6 с опытом в российских вопросах, был нанят в качестве субподрядчика для выполнения этой работы. До работы над досье Стил был платным конфиденциальным человеческим источником (CHS) для ФБР Для информации, не связанной с расследованием России.

Казначейство по кампании DNC и Clinton сообщило, что они заплатили Perkins Coie в общей сложности 12,4 млн. Долл. США за юридические и соблюдные требования во время кампании 2016 года. Это привело к утверждению, что досье стоило 12 миллионов долларов, Хотя фактическая стоимость была гораздо меньше. Согласно Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie заплатил им 1,02   млн. Долл. США в виде сборов и расходов, а GPS Fusion заплатил 168 000 долл. США фирме Steele, Orbis Business Intelligence, за производство досье. Несмотря на это, Трамп и его сын Дональд Трамп -младший продолжали претендовать на более года, что Стилу платили «миллионы долларов» за свою работу.

Орбис был нанят в период с июня по ноябрь 2016 года, а Стил за это время сообщил 16 отчетов, а 17 -й отчет был добавлен в декабре. Отчеты были похожи на «заметки о подготовке», основанные на информации из источников Стила и не были выпущены в качестве полностью проверенной и «готовой новостной статьи». Стил считает, что 70–90 процентов досье точнее, Вид, разделяемый Симпсоном.

Стил доставил свои отчеты индивидуально для GPS Fusion в виде отчетов с пронумерованным от одного до трех страниц. Первый отчет, датированный 20 июня 2016 года, был отправлен в Вашингтон курьером и подал вручную в GPS Fusion. Названия источников были отредактированы и заменены описаниями, чтобы помочь Fusion оценить их авторитет.

Люк Хардинг написал:

Сначала получение интеллекта из Москвы прошло хорошо. В течение примерно шести месяцев - в первой половине года - Сти -Стиле смог с относительной легкостью расследовать запросы в России. С конца июля стало сложнее, поскольку связи Трампа с Россией попали под пристальное внимание. Наконец, свет вышел. Среди прикрытия Кремля источники замолчали, а информационные каналы закрылись.

Передача отчетов в разведывательные агентства

Стил сказал, что вскоре обнаружил «тревожную информацию, указывающую на связи между Трампом и российским правительством». Согласно его источникам, «между кампанией Трампа и Кремлем о взаимной выгоде наблюдался обмен информацией». Согласно Хардингу, «Стил был шокирован степенью сговора, который сообщали его источники», и сказал своим друзьям: «Для любого, кто его читает, это опыт, меняющий жизнь». Стил чувствовал то, что он обнаружил, «было чем -то огромным значением, намного выше партийной политики». Американский репортер Говард Блюм описал обоснование Стила, когда он стал разоблачителем : «Больше хорошего превосходит все другие проблемы».

По своей собственной инициативе Стил решил также передать информацию британским и американским разведыванию, потому что он считал, что выводы были предметом национальной безопасности для обеих стран. В 2018 году Стил заявил в парламентском расследовании Великобритании, что британское правительство Терезы Мэй прикрыло доказательства, которые он предоставил им российских связей Трампа, и не предпринял никаких действий, и что Борис Джонсон подавил отчет о разведке в досье, который был подготовлен парламентом Комитет по разведке и безопасности . После долгой задержки отчет был опубликован 21 июля 2020 года.

Согласно показаниям Симпсона, Стил, который обладал хорошей рабочей репутацией »для знаний, которые он разработал за почти 20 лет, работая над вопросами, связанными с Россией для британской разведки , подошел к ФБР, потому что он был обеспокоен тем, что Трамп, тогдашний кандидат, шантажировал Россию . И он стал «очень обеспокоен тем, представляло ли это угрозу национальной безопасности». Стил полагал, что разведывательное сообщество «нужно срочно знать - если этого еще не было - что следующий возможный президент США потенциально был под влиянием России».

В начале июля 2016 года Стил вызвал опытного агента ФБР Майкла Гаэты, который был размещен в Риме и попросил его приехать в Лондон, чтобы он мог показать ему свои выводы. Поскольку он был назначен в посольство США в Риме, Гаэта искала и получила одобрение на поездку Виктории Нулэнд , которая была тогда помощником государственного секретаря по делам европейских и евразийских дел. Когда он прибыл в Лондон 5 июля 2016 года, он встретился со Стилом в своем офисе, и ему дали копию первого отчета Стила от 20 июня 2016 года (отчет 80). Его реакцией была «шок и ужас». Позвонив, что он прочитал, Гаэта заметила: «Я должен показать это штаб -квартирой».

Вскоре, в июле, отчет был отправлен агенту с опытом в отношении преступных организаций и организованными преступлениями в полевом офисе ФБР в Нью -Йорке - по сути, неправильному человеку, чтобы справиться с контрразведки. По словам Нэнси Летурно, политического писателя The Washington Monthly , отчет «Томился в нью -йоркском полевом офисе ФБР» в течение двух месяцев, и «наконец -то отправили в команду контрразведки, расследующая Россию в штаб -квартире ФБР в Вашингтоне, округ Колумбия». -Сеплеб 2016 года.

В августе 2016 года ФБР попросило Стила «всю информацию в его владении и для того, чтобы он объяснил, как материал был собран, и определить его источники». В октябре 2016 года Стил «описал доступ источников, но не предоставил имена» ФБР. К 22 августа 2017 года Стил предоставил им имена источников обвинений в досье.

Между тем, в срок с июлем по сентябрь, согласно данным The Washington Post , ЦРУ директор Джон Бреннан начал расследование с секретной целевой группой, «состоящей из нескольких десятков аналитиков и офицеров из ЦРУ , АНБ и ФБР». В то же время он был занят созданием собственного досье материала, документирующего, что «Россия не только пыталась вмешиваться на выборы 2016 года, но и делала это, чтобы выбрать Дональда Трампа.   ... Был настороженно по поводу этой ситуации, по крайней мере, за два месяца до того, как [досье] стало частью расследования ». «Стил досье до сих пор оказался довольно точным», - пишет Летурно.

В начале августа, которое было после открытия расследования ураганов CrossFire, Стил был вызван в Рим, где он дал полный брифинг четырем американским чиновникам ФБР о докладе. В то время он передал сообщения 20 июня и 26 июля.

Во время интенсивного допроса Стила ФБР упомянуло свои собственные открытия связей между кампанией Трампа и Россией и спросил Стила о Пападопулосе , но он сказал, что ничего не знал о нем. Агенты "повысили перспективу платить Стил, чтобы продолжить собирать разведка после дня выборов", Но Стил «в конечном итоге никогда не получал платеж от ФБР за любую информацию, связанную с досье». В октябре 2022 года, во время допроса специального адвоката Джона Дарема , Брайана Аутен, аналитика по надзору за контрразведкой в ​​ФБР, показал, что незадолго до выборов 2016 года ФБР предложило Стилу «до 1 миллиона долларов», если он мог подтвердить обвинения в Доссье. , но этот Стил не мог этого сделать. Стил оспорил это описание: «И чтобы исправить судебную запись Данхенко, ФБР не предложили 1 миллион долларов США, чтобы« доказать »нашу отчетность Трампа-Руссия. Скорее, нам сказали, что были существенные средства для переселения источников в США. Если они были готовы к даче на публику.

После публичного освобождения

Последующее публичное освобождение досье в январе 2017 года прекратило дискуссии между Стилом и ФБР. Отчет Генерального инспектора позже подтвердил, что ФБР изначально предложило заплатить Стил 15 000 долларов за поездку в Рим, но когда ФБР бросило Стил в качестве CHS, потому что он поделился информацией с третьей стороной »в конце октября 2016 года» ( Mother Jones журнал ), оплата была остановлена. Питер Стрзок сообщил, что:

ФБР закрыло Стил «потому что он был проблемой контроля. Мы не закрыли его, потому что думали, что он был [А] производителем». Согласно Стрзоку, решения Стила обсудить его репортаж со СМИ и раскрыть его отношения с ФБР были «ужасными, и это повредило то, что мы делали, и без сомнения, он не должен был этого делать».

В сентябре Стил встретился с Джонатаном Винерером, который был тогда заместителем государственного секретаря США по международным правоохранительным органам, которого он знал с 2009 года. В редакционной статье 2018 года для The Washington Post , Виномер рассказал, что во время их встречи в Вашингтоне ему разрешили пересмотреть отчеты Стила, но не чтобы сохранить копию: «Я подготовил на двух страницах и поделилась им с [Викторией] Нуландом, которая указала, что, как и я, она чувствовала что государственный секретарь должен был узнать об этом материале », - написал он. Позже, в сентябре, Винер обсудил отчет с Сидни Блюменталом , который сообщил, что получил аналогичную информацию от Коди Ширера, спорного политического активиста и бывшего журналиста, который был близок к Белому дому Клинтона в 1990 -х годах. Винер снова встретился со Стилом в конце сентября и дал ему копию отчета Ширера, позже известного как «Второе досье».

19 сентября 2016 года, после того, как отчет «томился в Нью -Йоркском офисе ФБР» в течение двух месяцев, в течение двух месяцев, Агент по обработке Стила отправил шесть из отчетов Стила (80, 94, 95, 100, 101 и 102) в команду ураганов Crossfire , которая работала с 31 июля 2016 года. Это был первый раз, когда они и их лидер, заместитель помощника Директор Секции ФБР по контрпуражению Питер Стрзок получил любую из репортажей Стила. Стрзок предупредил своих коллег: «[Досье]» следует рассматривать как предназначенное для влияния, а также для информирования «и тот, кто заказал, это« предполагалось, что он связан с кампанией [Клинтона] каким -то образом ». В некоторых отчетах говорится о членах внутреннего круга Трампа. После этого он продолжал делиться информацией с ФБР. В отчете IG говорится, что этот материал «стал важной частью расследования урагана по перекрестному огню, и ФБР, ищущее полномочия FISA, нацеленного на один из предметов урагана CrossFire, Картер Пейдж».

28 октября 2016 года, за несколько дней до выборов, Коми уведомила Конгресс, что ФБР начало изучать недавно обнаруженные электронные письма Хиллари Клинтон. Симпсон и Фриш описали свою реакцию: «Бомба Коми побудила партнеров по слиянию решить, что им нужно сделать все возможное, чтобы разоблачить расследование ФБР о Трампе и России. Это было« Радуя Мэри ». Основатели GPS Fusion были очень расстроены вводящей в заблуждение статьей 1 ноября 2016 года, статья «Нью -Йорк Таймс », опубликованная за неделю до выборов с заголовком: «Расследование Дональда Трампа, ФБР не видит четкой связи с Россией». Фактически, Россия была Вмешательство на выборы , чтобы помочь Трампу победить, разведывательное сообщество США позже завершится ».

Симпсон позже сказал, что «Стил разорвал свои контакты с [] ФБР до выборов после публичных заявлений ФБР о том, что он не нашел никакой связи между кампанией Трампа и Россией и опасениями, что [ФБР] манипулировали за политические концы Трамп народ ». Стил разочаровался ФБР, который, по его мнению, не смог расследовать его отчеты, решив вместо этого сосредоточиться на расследовании электронных писем Клинтона . Согласно The Independent была « Кабала , Стил пришел к выводу, что внутри ФБР », особенно его нью -йоркское полевое офис, связанный с советником Трампа Руди Джулиани , потому что он заблокировал любые попытки расследовать связи между Трампом и Россией. Он "стал обеспокоенным тем, что в процессе возникла сокрытие".

Что знал кампания DNC, Clinton и Steele

По словам совладельцев Fusion GPS, Гленна Симпсона и Питера Фрича, они не сказали Стилу, кем были их конечные клиенты, только то, что Стил "работал в юридической фирме", И они «не дали ему никаких конкретных походных приказов помимо этого основного вопроса:« Почему г -н Трамп неоднократно стремился заключать сделки в общеизвестно коррумпированном полицейском государстве, что большинство серьезных инвесторов избегают? » В показаниях Комитета по разведке Сената Симпсон сказал, что «это была идея Fusion GPS - заниматься зарубежными связями - это исследование не было направлено Перкинсом Кой, DNC или кампанией Клинтона».

Джейн Майер сообщила, что, когда кампания Клинтона «косвенно использует« Стил », Элиас создал« юридический барьер », выступая в качестве« брандмауэра »между кампанией и Стилом. Таким образом, любые детали были защищены привилегией адвоката -клиента и привилегии рабочего процесса . «Фьюжн проинформировал только Элиаса в отчетах, Симпсон не послал Элиаса на бумаге - он был проинформирован о пероральной форме», - сообщил Майер. В своем заявлении на ордер на FISA на опрос Картера Пейдж, Министерство юстиции сообщило FISC , что Симпсон не сообщил Стилу о мотивации исследования связей Трампа с Россией. Стил дал показания Конгрессу, что он не знал, что кампания Клинтона была источником платежей, «потому что он был сохранен GPS Fusion». К "конец июля 2016 года, «Через несколько месяцев» после подписания контракта с GPS Fusion Steele узнал, что DNC и кампания Клинтона были конечными клиентами.

Пресс-секретарь DNC сказал, что ни Том Перес , ни «новое руководство DNC не были   ... вовлечены в какое-либо принятие решений относительно GPS Fusion, и не знали, что Перкинс Кой работает с организацией». Представитель Perkins Coie сказал, что кампания и DNC не знали GPS Fusion «для проведения исследования». The Washington Post сообщила, что неясно, сколько исследований, которые Элиас получил от GPS Fusion, он поделился с кампанией и DNC. Также неясно, кто в этих организациях знал о роли GPS Fusion и Steele, но один человек «близко к этому вопросу» сказал, что организации «не были проинформированы юридической фирмой роли Fusion GPS». New York Times сообщила, что ранее в 2017 году «г -н Элиас отрицал, что он обладал досье перед выборами». Кампания Клинтона не знала о Стиле или о том, что он делился своими выводами с ФБР, и «один высший чиновник кампании Клинтона» сказал Джейн Майер, что «если бы я знал, что ФБР расследует Трамп, я бы крикнул его крыши! "

По сообщениям, брандмауэр был настолько эффективным, даже директора кампании Джон Подеста и Робби Мук не знали, что Стил был на демократической заработной плате, пока мать Джонс не сообщила по этому вопросу 31 октября 2016 года, в статье, в которой не названо Стил. Когда рассказала история « Мать Джонс» , Джон Подеста, председатель кампании Клинтона, сказал, что он «ошеломлен новостями о том, что ФБР начало полноценное расследование в отношении Трампа, особенно тот, который был проинформирован о исследованиях, подписанных кампанией Клинтона. " Хотя они знали, что Перкинс Кой потратил деньги на исследования оппозиции, ни поддеста, ни менеджер кампании Робби Мук не знали, что Стил был на демократической заработной плате. Майер сказал, что они оба утверждают, что «не читали досье, пока BuzzFeed не опубликовал его в Интернете». Когда Донна Бразил , временный председатель DNC, позже услышал слухи об исследованиях России, она спросила об этом Элиаса. По словам Бразила, он отмахнулся от нее и сказал: «Вы не хотите знать». Майер также сказал, что «кампания Клинтона так и не узнала, что Кристофер Стил был на их заработной плате до тех пор, пока она не была в прессе». «Далеко не секретное оружие кампании, Стил оказался секретом, хранящимся от кампании». В своей книге 2019 года основатели Fusion GPS написали: «Никто из Фьюжн никогда не встречался и не разговаривал с Клинтоном и что она сама« понятия не имела, кто они »».

Филипп Бэмп написал, что досье «никогда не было показано, что не было проинформировано о подходе кампании Клинтона, и это не было обнародовано до незадолго до того, как Трамп не был открыт».

15 февраля 2022 года The Washington Post сообщила: «До сих пор нет никаких доказательств того, что кампания Клинтона напрямую управляла отчетностью Steele или утечками в средствах массовой информации».

Намеки на существование

Когда GPS Fusion GPS впервые нанял Стил, «они думали, что« никто никогда не узнает »о сдержанной работе Стил, который будет выполнять. Этот прогноз оказался наивным», », И основатели GPS Fusion описали, как они вскоре не скрывали того факта, что они исследуют Трампа и Россию: «Фьюжн и Стил попытались предупредить правоохранительные органы США и средства массовой информации о материале, которые они обнаружили. Управление фирмы в Район Вашингтона Дюпон Круг стал «чем -то вроде публичного читального зала» для журналистов, ищущих информацию о Trumpworld ». В сентябре они организовали частные встречи в Tabard Inn, в Вашингтоне, округ Колумбия, между Стилом и журналистами из The Washington Post , The New York Times , New Yorker , ABC News и других торговых точек. Джейн Майер посетила одну из встреч. Ни одна из этих новостных организаций не провела никаких историй об обвинениях в то время.

Хотя Buzzfeed не был приглашен на эти встречи, Бен Смит , редактор Buzzfeed , писал, что «мы вряд ли были первыми журналистами, получившими документ, но мы, возможно, были первыми, кто получил его, не обещая его держать в секрете ... [[ Журналисты на собраниях Tabard Inn] пообещали Симпсону, что они не будут писать о самом досье, его авторе или его пути через американское правительство, [и] они также не могли сообщить об этих вещах ».

Би -би -си Корреспонденту Полу Вуду было разрешено увидеть «дюжину» страниц досье в октябре 2016 года.

Перед выборами только два источника новостей упомянули обвинения, которые были получены из досье досье. Стил был в контакте с обоими авторами. Это были 23 сентября 2016 года, Yahoo! Новостная статья Майкла Исикоффа, которая была сосредоточена на Картере Пейдж, и статья Дэвида Корна 31 октября 2016 года, за неделю до выборов, в Mother Jones . журнале

В то время ФБР предположило, что источник для Yahoo! Статья была кем -то, кроме Стила, «который получил копию досье». Доклад Министерства юстиции за 2019 год Майкла Горовица раскритиковал ФБР за то, что он не мог спросить Стила, сыграл ли он роль в этом Yahoo! статья.

Матери Джонса История

К третьему кварталу 2016 года многие новостные организации знали о существовании досье, которое было описано как «открытый секрет» среди журналистов, но решил не публиковать информацию, которую они не могли подтвердить. Мать Джонс была первой, кто сообщил о существовании досье и о том, что оно финансировалось исключительно демократами.

К октябрю 2016 года Стил собрал 33 страницы (16 отчетов), и затем он передал то, что обнаружил Дэвиду Корну , репортеру из журнала Mother Jones . 31 октября 2016 года, за неделю до выборов, мать Джонс сообщила, что бывший офицер разведки, которого они не назвали, дали отчет, основанный на российских источниках и передал его в ФБР. В статье раскрылись некоторые утверждения досье:

Первая записка, основанная на разговорах бывшего сотрудника по разведке с российскими источниками, отметила: «Российский режим выращивает, поддерживает и помогает Трампу не менее 5   лет. AIM, одобренная Путином, было поощрять расколы и разделения в западном альянсе. . " Он утверждал, что Трамп »и его внутренний круг приняли регулярный поток интеллекта из Кремля, в том числе о его демократических и других политических соперниках». Он утверждал, что российская разведка «скомпрометировала» Трампа во время его посещений в Москву и могла «шантажировать его». В нем также сообщалось, что российская разведка собрала досье на Хиллари Клинтон на основе «разговоров, которые она провела при различных визитах в Россию и перехваченных телефонных звонков».

События после выборов

После избрания Трампа 8 ноября 2016 года демократический клиент перестал платить за расследование, но Стил продолжал работать над досье для GPS Fusion. По словам независимости , в то время Симпсон, как сообщается, потратил свои собственные деньги, чтобы продолжить расследование ». Согласно The New York Times , после выборов, досье Стила стало одним из «худших секретов» Вашингтона, и журналисты работали над проверкой обвинений.

18 ноября 2016 года сенатор -республиканец Джон Маккейн , который был проинформирован о предполагаемых связях между Кремлем и Трампом, встретился с бывшим британским послом Москвы сэра Эндрю Вуда на Форуме международного безопасности Галифакса в Канаде. Вуд рассказал Маккейну о существовании собранных материалов о Трампе, а также поручено за профессионализм и честность Стила.

Согласно Симпсону от 22 августа 2017 года, показания судебного комитета Сената Стил и Дэвида Дж. Крамера , давнего помощника Маккейна и бывшего чиновника государственного департамента США, работающих в Университете штата Аризона , встретились на форуме Галифакса и обсудили досье. Крамер сказал Стилу, что Маккейн хотел «задать вопросы об этом в ФБР.   ... Все, что мы разыскивали, было для правительства, чтобы выполнить свою работу, и мы были обеспокоены тем, предоставила ли информация, которую мы предоставили ранее, вы знаете, поднялся до уровня лидерства в ФБР ».

Стил согласился с GPS Fusion по доставке печатной копии всех 16 отчетов McCain, что Маккейн получил в начале декабря от Крамера. 9 декабря Маккейн встретился лично с директором ФБР Джеймсом Коми и дал ему копию досье. 25 марта 2019 года сенатор Линдси Грэм , близкий друг Маккейна, противоречил нападениям Трампа на Маккейна и показал, что, когда Маккейн показал ему досье, он призвал Маккейна отдать досье ФБР и что Маккейн действовал соответствующим образом. Грэм рассказал, как он столкнулся с Трампом: «Сенатор Маккейн заслуживает лучшего. Были некоторые люди Маккейна, которые взяли кусок мусора и пытались пойти после Трампа после выборов. Но я сказал президенту, что это не Джон Маккейн». Позже Коми подтвердила, что расследования контрразведки были введены в возможные связи между Trump Associates и Moscow.

После доставки своих 16 отчетов Маккейну, Стил получил больше информации и составила двухстраничную «декабрьскую меморандум» от 13 декабря. В основном в ней были обвинения против личного адвоката Трампа Майкла Коэна, который Коэн позже отрицал. В апреле 2017 года судебный процесс Стил сообщил ранее не сообщающуюся информацию, что он дал копию своего последнего отчета «высокопоставленному чиновнику государственной безопасности Великобритании, действующим в своем официальном качестве на конфиденциальной основе в форме жесткой копии», потому что это », потому что это», потому что это » имели последствия для национальной безопасности США и Великобритании ».

И Симпсон, и Стил отрицали предоставление досье для BuzzFeed . Открытые документы из процесса обнаружения в российском предпринимателе Алексея Губарева о клевете показали, что Дэвид Крамер, сотрудник Джона Маккейна, передал досье Buzzfeed »в декабре 2016 года, через несколько недель после выборов», В том, что Фрич назвал «нездоровым» проходом Град Мэри . Бен Смит, редактор BuzzFeed, описал, как они получили досье:

29 декабря республиканский эксперт по иностранной политике Дэвид Крамер пригласил Кена [Бенсингера] в свой офис в Институте Маккейна. Затем он сделал что -то осторожное инсайдеры Вашингтона: он оставил Кена в одиночестве в комнате с документом на 20 минут, без, по мнению Кена, дав четкие инструкции о том, может ли он сделать копию. Кен сфотографировал каждую страницу. (Крамер позже отрицал, что он позволил Кену скопировать его ...)

Никогда не было предназначено, что досье будет публичным, потому что это был незаконченный необработанный интеллект и могло «скомпрометировать источники и методы». Стил также беспокоился о безопасности своей исходной сети, и он выразил обеспокоенность тем, что если Трамп победит на выборах, новый директор ФБР и другие руководители агентства, назначенные Трампом Стил и его исходная сеть ».

Брифинги Обамы и Трампа

5 января 2017 года начальники четырех разведывательных агентств США проинформировали президента Барака Обамы и вице -президента Джо Байдена о вмешательстве России в выборы и существовании досье и его обвинениях.

Днем От 6 января 2017 года избранные президент Трамп и его команда по переходной группе получили аналогичный брифинг в Trump Tower. Все четверо лучших руководителей разведки встретились с Трампом и его переходной командой. Они были директором национальной разведки Джеймса Клэппера, директора ФБР Джеймс Коми, директора ЦРУ Джон Бреннан и директора АНБ адмирал Майк Роджерс . Они сообщили Трампу о вмешательстве российских выборов, И Коми рассказала им о «отчетности Стила, в которой указывалось, что Россия имели файлы уничижительной информации как о Клинтоне, так и о избранном президенте». Позже Трамп дал показания под присягой, «что он впервые был осведомлен о существовании досье тогдашним директором ФБР Джеймсом Коми 6 января 2018 года [sic], на встрече, которая состоялась в течение переходного периода после его выборов».

Затем, согласно предварительному плану, ушли Бреннан, Клэппер и Роджерс, а затем Коми попросили поговорить с Трампом в одиночку. Затем Коми сообщила Трампу о досье и его обвинениях о непристойных лентах, удерживаемых русскими. Позже Коми сообщил, что очень нервничал. В предыдущий день секретарь Министерства внутренней безопасности сказал Comey «быть очень осторожным», «тщательно выбирайте свои слова», а затем «убирайся туда». Трамп стал очень оборонительным, и Коми назвал встречу «действительно странной». Позже Трамп заявил, что он чувствовал, что Джеймс Коми пытается шантажировать его на встрече в Трамп Тауэр, которая проходила за две недели до инаугурации. В апреле 2018 года Коми сказал, что он не сообщил Трампу о том, что досье частично финансировалось демократами, потому что это «не было необходимым для моей цели, которая должна была предупредить его о том, что у нас есть эта информация».

14 декабря 2018 года ФБР выпустило документ под названием «Приложение A», который был «частью [Российского досье», использовавшегося для проинформирования Трампа и Обамы. ФБР скрыло части синопсиса на том основании, что оно оставалось классифицированным, и «потому что оно относится к текущим расследованиям или судебным разбирательствам, возникшим с конфиденциальным источником или описывает конфиденциальные методы расследования или процедуры».

Через два дня после публикации досье 10 января 2017 года Джеймс Клэппер опубликовал заявление, описывающее утечки в прессе о своей встрече Трампа Тауэр с Трампом как нанесение вреда национальной безопасности США. Заявление также включало не связанную формулировку, которую американское разведывательное сообщество «не вынесло никакого суждения о том, что информация в этом документе надежна, и мы никоим образом не полагались на нее для наших выводов». Это противоречило предыдущему утверждению Трампа о том, что Клэппер сказал, что информация в досье была ложной; В заявлении Клэппера фактически говорилось, что разведывательное сообщество не судило истину информации.

Джеймс Коми не согласился с формулировкой Клэппера, но формулировка Клэппера осталась неизменной. Позже Коми сообщил Управлению Генерального инспектора о своих проблемах в то время, потому что он считал, что досье будет более надежным, чем указано в не связанном заявлении Клэппера:

Я беспокоюсь, что может быть не лучше сказать: «IC не вынес никакого суждения о том, что информация в документе надежна». Я говорю, что, поскольку мы пришли к выводу, что источник [Steele] надежен и имеет послужной список с нами сообщением о надежной информации; У нас есть некоторая видимость в его исходной сети, некоторые из которых мы решили быть подписенками, в которых можно сообщить о таких вещах; И многое из того, что он сообщает в текущем документе, соответствует и подтверждает другие отчеты, включенные в тело основного отчета IC. Тем не менее, мы не можем достаточно подтвердить отчетность, чтобы включить в организм [ICA] отчета.

Публикация и реакции

10 января 2017 года CNN сообщила, что классифицированные документы, представленные Обаме и Трампу на предыдущей неделе, включали утверждения о том, что российские оперативники обладают «компрометированием личной и финансовой информации» о Трампе. CNN сказал, что не будет опубликовать конкретные подробности о отчетах, потому что он не «независимо подтвердил конкретные обвинения». После отчета CNN, Buzzfeed опубликовал 35-страничный проект досье, который, по его словам, был основой для брифинга, включая незавершенные заявления о том, что российские оперативники собрали «неловкий материал» с участием Трампа, который можно использовать для шантажа. Buzzfeed сказал, что информация включала «конкретные, неверные и потенциально не поддающиеся проверке обвинений в контакте между помощниками Трампа и российскими оперативниками».

New York Times прокомментировал: «Мистер Стил дал понять, что он всегда считал, что досье является необработанным интеллектом - не установленными фактами, а отправной точкой для дальнейшего расследования». Судья Крейг Карсниц описал цель досье: «Расчетный отчет - это просто отчет информации, потенциально относящейся к расследованию. Он может принимать разные формы, быть истинным или ложным, и может использоваться в качестве оппозиционного исследования и отчета разведки». Кристофер Берроуз, соучредитель Orbis Business Intelligence, не считает это «досье», а «информация, которая называется« необработанным интеллектом »в разведывательных кругах.   ... смесь знаний, слухов и слухов.   .. .

Решение Buzzfeed опубликовать досье было немедленно подвергнуто критике со стороны многих крупных СМИ за выпуск проекта досье без проверки его обвинений. Washington Post Обозреватель Маргарет Салливан назвал это «грязными обвинениями, одетыми как разведывательный отчет, предназначенный для повреждения Дональда Трампа», В то время как New York Times отметила, что публикация вызвала дискуссию, сосредоточенную на использовании необоснованной информации из анонимных источников. персонал Buzzfeed Исполнительный сказал, что материалы заслуживают внимания, потому что они «находились в широком распространении на самых высоких уровнях американского правительства и средств массовой информации» и утверждали, что это оправдано публичное освобождение. Судья в Верховном суде округа Колумбия согласился с этим рассуждением, когда он выбросил иск против Стила и Орбис бизнес -аналитики.

Несмотря на то, что в Колумбийской журналистской обзор изначально (11 января 2017 г.) поддержал публикацию Buzzfeed о досье, и редактор Кайл Папа написал в Твиттере поддержку этого решения, Позже он (17 ноября 2021 года) описал его как «документ, который никогда не был предназначен для соответствия стандартам хорошей журналистики», отметив, что его авторитет рухнул, и заключив, что это является источником «много глупостей и неправильного направления». В последующем освещении в СМИ и не должно было быть опубликовано вообще. Сара Фишер, репортер медиа -аксиос , критиковала первоначальное освещение в прессе досье до того, как оно было адекватно тщательно изучено.

Публикация Draft Dossier от BuzzFeed всегда защищалась Джеком Шафером , медиа -писатель Politico Старший , а также Ричард Тофель из Propublica и Columbia Journalism Review . Шафер защищал право общественности знать об обвинениях против Трампа и увидел параллель в решении судьи Унгаро в иске о клевете, поданном Алексей Губаревом. Унгаро написал, что «привилегия существует для защиты средств массовой информации, в то время как они собирают информацию, необходимую для общественности, чтобы осуществить эффективный надзор за правительством». Она также отметила, что до того, как ФБР получило какие -либо отчеты от Стила, они «уже открыли расследование контрразведки о связях между Россией и кампанией Трампа».

В отношении иска о диффамации, поданном Губаревам против BuzzFeed в отношении их публикации проекта досье, старший мастер Барбара Фонтен сказал Досье сенатору Джону Маккейну и высокопоставлению государственной национальной безопасности, а также в брифинге секции американских СМИ ». Она сказала, что «не было известно, кто предоставил досье Buzzfeed, но доказательства мистера Стила состояли в том, что он был« в ужасе и остается в ужасе », что оно было опубликовано вообще, не говоря уже без существенных перераспределений».

Основатели GPS Fusion чувствовали себя настолько встревоженными тем, что источники сообщили Стилу, что они защищали тот факт, что они и Стил использовали посредников, чтобы передать содержание досье властям, но в отношении публикации Buzzfeed , если это было перед ними, для них, «Репортаж Стила никогда бы не увидел свет». Он был опубликован без разрешения Стила, И Кристофер Барроуз сказал: «Мы не ожидали, что выводы о России достигнут общественности».

Они также были встревожены тем, что публикация драфта досье будет подвергаться опасности источников, и Гленн Симпсон сразу же позвонил Кену Бенсингеру в Buzzfeed : «Обрати эти гребаные отчеты прямо сейчас! Вы собираетесь убить людей!»

Стил написал:

Интересно, размышлял ли Buzzfeed о жизни и средствах к существованию, которые они подвергают риску, опубликовав досье или затвору, который он уделял каким -либо дальнейшим усилиям по сбору по этому вопросу, а другие - любым или любым правительственным агентством. На мой взгляд, BuzzFeed сделал работу Кремля для них, потому что они были полны решимости не терять совок полностью после того, как CNN разбил оригинальную историю. Один из самых безответственных журналистских действий.

Спустя шесть лет после публикации досье, Бен Смит, редактор BuzzFeed , описал свои сожаления о том, как это было сделано:

Если бы мне пришлось сделать это снова, я бы опубликовал досье - мы не смогли бы его подавить ... но я бы крепче придерживался документа ... я бы не просто опубликовал его как PDF, предназначенный для свободных от наших серьезных предостережений. В лучшем случае мы могли бы опубликовать документ в виде скриншотов, прикрепленных к контексту, который у нас был, и контекст, который мы узнали. Возможно, каким -то образом это ограничило бы его преобразование от набора претензий в баннер «сопротивления». Но я не подвергаюсь иллюзии, что журналисты могли бы содержать его распространение лесных пожаров, так же, как я думаю, мы могли бы скрыть его.

Стилу не нравится термин «досье»:

Потому что это было не досье. Это серия отчетов о живой проблеме, избирательной кампании, проходящей во времени. Эти отчеты не были сопоставлены и представлены в одном предложении, и они не были подробно проанализированы нами. По сути, это был бегущий комментарий. Это было не досье.

Формат

Когда Buzzfeed опубликовал 35-страничное досье в январе 2017 года, отдельные отчеты были от одной-трех страниц длиной, пронумерованы, а номера страниц 1–35 были написаны от руки внизу. У всех, кроме одного, была напечатанная дата внизу. Каждый из первых 16 сообщений (меморандумы о выборах ) был присвоен печатный номер в заголовке от 80 до 135, но числовой порядок не всегда соответствовал хронологическому порядку. 17 -й отчет, известный как «Декабрьская памятка», был пронумерован 166. Из первоначальных отчетов пронумеровано 1–166, для досье использовались только определенные отчеты, и неизвестно, что произошло с содержанием других отчетов: «Например, первый отчет помечен как« 080 », без указания не указано. Что касается того, куда могли бы истечь оригинальные 79 предшественников. "

Каждый отчет начинался со страницы в том же стиле, что и первый, показанный здесь:

Конфиденциальный/чувствительный источник

Компания Intelligence Report 2016/080

Президентские выборы в США: кандидат от республиканцев Дональд Трамп
Деятельность в России и компромиссные отношения с
Кремль

Каждый отчет находился в двух частях, начиная с резюме, за которым следует раздел подробностей. Сводка содержала сводные параграфы, основанные на пронумерованном и расширенном контенте и результатах в следующем разделе с подробной информацией.

Правовой статус и сравнение с собранием Trump Tower

Основная статья: собрание башни Трампа

Правовой статус досье был допрошен, Но из -за юридической разницы между «расходами» кампанией и «вкладом» в кампанию она не противоречит законам Федеральной избирательной комиссии (52 Кодекса США § 30121) запрещает иностранным гражданам или помогает или помогает политическому Кампании, и это относится к любой форме помощи, а не только к денежным пожертвованиям. Досье (подготовленное британским гражданином, косвенно нанятым кампанией Клинтона и DNC) и собрание Trump Tower 2016 года (включающее прямое предложение помощи российским правительством в кампании Трампа) часто противоречат и объединяется в этом отношении.

Филипп Бэмп объяснил, что «почему собрание Трампа Башни, возможно, нарушило закон, а досье Стила, вероятно, не было»: «Наем иностранной партии для проведения исследований очень отличается, в том числе в юридических условиях, чем предоставление информации иностранными субъектами, стремящимися влиять на выборы. Более того, кампания Трампа приняла иностранную помощь в 2016 году, как расследование специального советника Роберта С. ..  ​

Встреча башни Трампа включала добровольное предложение помощи («Вклад кампании») к кампании Трампа от российского правительства, и, таким образом, предложение было незаконным, чтобы принять каким -либо образом. Уже до встречи кампания Трампа знала источник и цель предложения о помощи, все еще приветствовала предложение, успешно скрыла его в течение года, и когда встреча была окончательно разоблачена, Трамп выпустил обширный пресс -релиз об этом.

Напротив, работа Стила была юридической кампанией. и не включал никакого добровольного предложения о помощи кампании Клинтона от российского правительства. Закон FEC допускает такие расходы на кампанию (должным образом объявлено), даже если помощь выполняется иностранцами.

Бамп объясняет, что:

Президент Трамп сознательно и регулярно объединял их, утверждая, что прежнее собрание было безобидным и что настоящее злоупотребление - настоящий сговор - был между кампанией Клинтона и теми русскими, которые разговаривали со Стилом. Трамп неверен. Нет никаких оснований думать, что кампания Клинтона виновна в любом незаконном законе, связанном с трудоустройством Стила и веской причины, чтобы подумать, что закон был нарушен вокруг встречи в Трамп Тауэр, и что члены команды Трампа могут столкнуться с юридическими последствиями.

В сентябре 2018 года фонд Orgitan Coolidge Regant Foundation подал жалобу на FEC против кампании Клинтона, DNC, Perkins Coie и Fusion GPS, за то, что он «нарушил закон о финансировании кампании путем сговора с иностранными гражданами, включая нынешних и бывших членов Российское правительство, чтобы манипулировать результатами выборов 2016 года ». В жалобе содержались семь очков, в основном о предполагаемом заговоре с иностранцами, а также о скрытии предполагаемых преступлений, искажая расходы в качестве «юридических расходов» для Перкинса Кой и последнего, действующего в качестве среднего человека за эти расходы.

После назначенного расследования и некоторых согласительных переговоров в марте 2022 года FEC отклонил большую часть обвинений (включая все предполагаемые нарушения 52 Кодекса США § 30121). Тем не менее, FEC обнаружил «вероятную причину полагать», что DNC и кампания Клинтона (и их казначейство) «[неверно сообщили] цель определенных выплат». В урегулировании FEC оштрафовал DNC на 105 000 долл. США и кампанию Клинтона на 8 000 долл. США за то, что он исказил эти сборы и расходы как «юридические услуги» и «юридические консультации и консультации по соблюдению», а не «исследования оппозиции». DNC и кампания Клинтона согласились не оспаривать штрафы, но не признали, что нарушили правила.

Стивен Л. Холл , бывший глава России ЦРУ, противопоставил методы Стила с методами Дональда Трампа -младшего, который искал информацию у российского адвоката на собрании в Трамп -Тауэр в июне 2016 года: «Различие: Стил шпионил против России к Получить информацию, Россия не хотела, чтобы Дон -младший взял MTG, чтобы получить информацию, которые русские хотели дать ».

Джейн Майер сослалась на ту же собрание и противопоставил разницу в реакции на попытки России поддержать Трампа: когда Трампу младшему предложили «грязь» на Клинтона как «часть России и его государственную поддержку мистера Трампа», вместо того, чтобы «идти Для ФБР, поскольку Стил: «Когда он узнал, что Россия помогает Трампу, сын Трампа принял поддержку, ответив:« Если вы говорите, я люблю это ».

Наследие

Гленн Симпсон считает, что досье прервало запланированное обновление отношений между Соединенными Штатами и Россией , которые «не были во интересах Соединенных Штатов»; что он поддержал существующее расследование ФБР в российском вмешательстве; и что это способствовало пониманию скрытых отношений между российским правительством и кампанией Трампа. Джейн Майер считает, что досье является «пожалуй, самым противоречивым исследованием оппозиции, когда -либо появляющимися из президентской кампании», и Джулиан Боргер описал это как «один из самых взрывных документов в современной политической истории».

Та Франк описал досье как «тематическое исследование» в манипуляциях с медиа . В своей книге 2021 года напугана: «Досье Трампа», «Черный куб» и «Рост частных шпионов» , бывший журналист New York Times Барри Мейер прокомментировал: «СМИ организации не проводили внутренние посмерти или публичные реконструкции о том, как они справляются с историей досье [потому что ] это потребовало бы, чтобы они раскрыли токсичные отношения, которые развивались между журналистами и частными шпионами ».

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

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.

According to Tommy Vietor, "once a narrative enters the media ether, it can become uncontrollable... once a rumor gets some traction, it's almost impossible to fix it, even if it is false. The problem with the pee tape allegation is it is so graphic, it is so memorable, that it doesn't matter how many times you knock it down — people are going to remember it."

As long as it isn't released, the alleged pee tape has a lasting effect. When Steele was asked why the Russians hadn't released the tape, 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."

The founders of Fusion GPS have written: "Ultimately, whether the incident detailed in the dossier is true or not is likely not of paramount importance. The Russians had ample kompromat against Trump and his top aides with or without any pee tape."

Authorship and sources

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

Christopher Steele

When CNN reported the existence of the dossier on January 10, 2017, 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". His friends later reported that he feared assassination by Russians. The Wall Street Journal revealed Steele's name the next day, on January 11. Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for whom Steele worked at the time the dossier was authored, and its director Christopher Burrows, a counterterrorism specialist, would not confirm or deny that Orbis had produced the dossier. 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."

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, 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. He currently works for Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, a private intelligence company he co-founded in London.

Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Moscow, has vouched for Steele's reputation. 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". 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.

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. Simpson has also confirmed that "there was no pre-existing animus toward Trump by Steele or Fusion".

Later, as Steele was preparing the dossier before the 2016 election, Bruce Ohr said Steele, based on what he learned during his research, told him he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president" (a quote disputed by Steele), attitudes that have been described by Julian Sanchez as "entirely natural, not suggestive of preexisting bias", considering Steele believed his own reporting. 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." 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."

Steele first became a 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." 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)."

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". 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".

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." Instead, the report found that Steele relied on a "Primary Sub-source", later revealed as Igor Danchenko, who "used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele".

District Judge Anthony Trenga analyzed the question of Steele's sources and acknowledged that Steele had other sources than Danchenko. He countered Special Counsel John Durham's contention "that Danchenko was Steele's primary source of information for the Steele Reports writ large" by noting that Steele used other sources than Danchenko: "Nor is there any evidence that ... Steele only, or almost entirely, used Danchenko as his source for the Reports."

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."

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."

Simpson has said that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources. 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. Since payment of these sub-subsources can be seen as bribery or might encourage exaggeration, they are unpaid. Steele testified that these sub-subsources "were not paid and were not aware that their information was being passed to Orbis or Fusion GPS".

According to British journalist Luke Harding, Steele's sources were not new, but trusted, proven, and familiar sources. Howard Blum said Steele leaned on sources "whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years". Steele later informed the Inspector General's investigators that this "source network did not involve sources from his time as a former foreign government employee and was developed entirely in the period after he retired from governmental service." (Footnote 214)

Igor Danchenko

In January 2017, the Primary Sub-source, later identified as Ukrainian-born and Russian-trained attorney Igor Danchenko, 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. He was interviewed for three days by the FBI and said that Steele misstated or exaggerated certain information. Danchenko has said "he did not know who Mr. Steele's client was at the time and considered himself a nonpartisan analyst and researcher".

The FBI found that he was "truthful and cooperative", 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". 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". Starting in March 2017, Danchenko became a paid CHS for the FBI. During this time, he allegedly lied to the FBI five times during interviews about the dossier and was terminated in October 2020. He was later prosecuted by John Durham for those alleged lies, but on October 14, 2022, the judge dropped one charge, and four days later, Danchenko was acquitted of the other four charges.

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". Immediately after Barr's unmasking of Danchenko, Graham posted it to the Senate Judiciary Committee's web site. 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. 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.

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

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 by Attorney General William Barr also brought to light an inaccuracy in the dossier that describes him as a "Russian-based" source. In fact, although he traveled to Russia six times in 2016 to gather information, 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.

Danchenko feared for the safety of his sources:

He feared for his sources in Russia — at least a dozen of them, he calculated, could be in serious danger if linked to him. He deleted friends from LinkedIn. He severed ties with a network of hundreds.

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." In August 2024, "Danchenko still believes most of the dossier's rumors were correct, and that the overall theme of Trump's suspect connections to Russia was spot on... And yet, Danchenko still believes — despite never having viewed it, despite his evidence really only being rumors and innuendo that he gathered but that many discredit — that there's a pee tape."

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. These included Danchenko having allegedly obscured his relationship with Charles Dolan Jr. and having allegedly fabricated contacts with Sergei Millian. On October 14, 2022, the judge dropped one charge, and four days later, Danchenko was acquitted of the other four charges.

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."

Value as FBI source

During his trial, two FBI officials revealed that Danchenko was "an uncommonly valuable" CHS for several years whose role went far beyond the Steele dossier:

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". 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.

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'."

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.

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. He denies being a dossier source. Although Steele told the FBI that Person 1 was a "boaster" and "egoist" who "may engage in some embellishment", the FBI omitted these "caveats about his source" from the FISA application.

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'." 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. 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." 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."

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". 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". 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".

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. Danchenko's indictment "suggests that while Danchenko allegedly misled people about his conversations with Dolan, the executive also misled Danchenko". 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. 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." 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."

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

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."

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".

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. 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."

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:

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:

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) "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public". (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.)

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". 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".

On October 17, 2021, in Steele's first major interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos asked why Danchenko, the Primary Sub-source, minimized his role by telling 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 held the same view as the FBI's Supervisory Intel Analyst that Danchenko was "minimizing" certain things: "his collector may have 'taken fright' at having his cover blown and tried to 'downplay and underestimate' his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI".

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".

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. Legal experts at Lawfare examined the unredacted footnotes and pushed back against these claims:

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":

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."

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, 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. 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, and Steele has denied that Deripaska knew of the dossier's existence. The IG report stated:

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."

Jane Mayer describes how

Trump's defenders have claimed that Steele fell prey to Russian disinformation, and so, therefore, it is he, not Trump, who has been a useful idiot for the Russians. But Steele tells the authors, 'These people simply have no idea what they’re talking about.' He emphasizes that his network of sources 'is tried and tested' and has 'been proven up in many other matters.' He adds, 'I've spent my entire adult life working with Russian disinformation. It's an incredibly complex subject that is at the very core of my training and my professional mission.

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". 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".

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.

Allegations

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, others unconfirmed, but, according to James Clapper and Fox News host Shepard Smith, none are disproven.

Trump and Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, and Trump has labeled the dossier "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".

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

• ... that "Russian authorities" had cultivated Trump "for at least 5 years", and that the operation was "supported and directed" by Putin. (Report 80)
• ... that the Russian government's support for Trump was originally conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then by the Federal Security Service (FSB), and was eventually directly handled by the Russian presidency because of its "growing significance over time". (Report 130)

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.

Conspiracy, cooperation, and back channel communication

See also: § Russian assistance to the Trump campaign

• ... that there was an extensive and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership", with information willingly exchanged in both directions. That this cooperation was "sanctioned at the 'highest level' and involved Russian diplomatic staff based in the US". That the Trump campaign used "moles within DNC as well as hackers in the US and Russia". (Report 95)
• ... that Trump had "so far declined various sweetener real estate business deals", but had "accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin", notably on his political rivals. (Report 80)
• ... that Trump associates had established "an intelligence exchange [with the Kremlin] for at least 8 years". That Trump and his team had delivered "intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs and their families", as requested by Putin. (Report 97)

Why Russia supports Trump

See also: § Relations with Europe and NATO

• ... that a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country". (Report 130)
• ... that Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests. (Report 80)
• ... that "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system; anti-Establishment; and a pragmatist with whom they could do business." That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected. (Report 130)

Changing relationships

• ... that "there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office." (Report 100)
• ... that the Trump camp became angry and resentful toward Putin when they realized he not only was aiming to weaken Clinton and bolster Trump, but was attempting to "undermine the US government and democratic system more generally". (Report 102)

Kompromat and blackmail: Trump

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

• ... 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. There he employed "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him" 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 as kompromat. (Report 80)
• ... that Trump was vulnerable to blackmail from Russian authorities for paying bribes and engaging in unorthodox and embarrassing sexual behavior over the years, and that the authorities were "able to blackmail him if they so wished". (Reports 80, 95, 97, 113)
• ... that the Kremlin had promised Trump they would not use the kompromat collected against him "as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team". (Report 97)
• ... that Trump had explored the real estate sectors in St. Petersburg and Moscow, "but in the end TRUMP had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success". (Report 95)
• ... that witnesses to his "sex parties in the city" had been "'silenced' i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear." (Report 113)
• ... that Trump had paid bribes in St. Petersburg "to further his [business] interests". (Report 113)
• ... that Aras Agalarov "would know most of the details of what the Republican presidential candidate had got up to" in St. Petersburg. (Report 113)
• ... that Trump associates did not fear "the negative media publicity surrounding alleged Russian interference" because it distracted attention from his "business dealings in China and other emerging markets" involving "large bribes and kickbacks" that could be devastating if revealed. (Report 95)

Kompromat: Clinton

Dmitry Peskov (2010s)

• ... that Putin ordered the maintenance of a secret dossier on Hillary Clinton, with content dating back to the time of her husband's presidency. The dossier comprised eavesdropped conversations, either from bugging devices or from phone intercepts; it did not contain "details/evidence of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior", but focused more on "things she had said which contradicted her current positions on various issues". (Report 80)
• ... that the Clinton dossier had been collated by the FSB and was managed by Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary. (Report 80)

Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton

• ... that Putin feared and hated Hillary Clinton. (Report 95)
• ... that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON". (Reports 95, 100)
• ... that Putin's interference operation had an "objective of weakening CLINTON and bolstering TRUMP". (Report 102)

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)

• ... that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had "managed" a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership", and that he used Trump's foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others, "as intermediaries". (Report 95)
• ... that Page had "conceived and promoted" the timing of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP". (Reports 95, 102)
• ... that Page was informed by Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, "that the Russians had kompromat on Clinton and Trump, and allegedly added that Trump 'should bear this in mind'." (Report 94)
• ... that Igor Divyekin told Page of the possibility of releasing "a dossier of kompromat the Kremlin possessed on Democratic presidential rival, Hillary CLINTON ... to the Republican's campaign team". (Report 94)
• ... that Cohen played a "key role" in the Trump–Russia relationship by maintaining a "covert relationship with Russia", arranging cover-ups and "deniable cash payments", and that his role had grown after Manafort had left the campaign. (Reports 134, 135, 136, 166)
• ... that "COHEN now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of TRUMP's relationship with Russia being exposed." (Report 135)

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

• ... that Russia was responsible for the DNC email hacks and the recent appearance of the stolen DNC emails on WikiLeaks, and that the reason for using WikiLeaks was "plausible deniability". (Report 95)
• ... that "the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team". (Report 95)
• ... that after the emails had been forwarded to WikiLeaks, it was decided to not leak more, but to engage in misinformation: "Rather the tactics would be to spread rumours and misinformation about the content of what already had been leaked and make up new content." (Report 101)
• ... that Page had "conceived and promoted" the idea of [the Russians] leaking the stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. (Reports 95, 102)
• ... that Page had intended the email leaks "to swing supporters of Bernie SANDERS away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP". (Report 102)
• ... that the hacking of the DNC servers was performed by Romanian hackers ultimately controlled by Putin and paid by both Trump and Putin. (Report 166)
• ... that Cohen, together with three colleagues, secretly met with Kremlin officials in the Prague offices of Rossotrudnichestvo in August 2016, where he arranged "deniable cash payments" to the hackers and sought "to cover up all traces of the hacking operation", as well as "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine". (Reports 135, 166)
• ... that "hackers ... had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign". (Report 166)

Kickbacks and quid pro quo agreements to lift sanctions

See also: § Manafort and kickback payments from Yanukovych

Viktor Yanukovych (2013)

• ... that Viktor Yanukovych, the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine, had told Putin he had been making supposedly untraceable kickback payments to Manafort while he was Trump's campaign manager. (Report 105)
• ... that in return for Russia's leaking the stolen documents to WikiLeaks, "the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and 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." (Report 95)
• ... that Page had secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in Moscow on "either 7 or 8 July", together with a "senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN". (Reports 95, 135, 166)
• ... 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. (Reports 94, 166)

Cultivation of various U.S. political figures

• ... that the Kremlin had support(ed) "various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. [The source] named a delegation from Lyndon LAROUCHE; presidential candidate Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard as successful in terms of perceived outcomes." (Report 101)

Russian spy withdrawn

See also: § Spy withdrawn from Russian embassy

• ... that Russia had hastily withdrawn from Washington their diplomat Mikhail Kalugin (misspelled as "Kulagin"), whose prominent role in the interference operation should remain hidden. (Report 111)

Use of botnets and porn traffic by hackers

See also: § Hackers use of botnets and porn traffic

• ... 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" and that Gubarev had been coerced by the FSB and was a significant player. (Report 166)

Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations

See also: § Discrepancies between sources and their allegations

The veracity status of the dossier and its allegations is still somewhat unknown because of a lack of thorough investigation by the FBI, an inadequacy that has been criticized. This lack leaves many allegations with an "unproven" status. They may be true, untrue, unimportant, or "too sensitive".

Efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI and 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". Then the FBI stopped all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when Mueller's office took over the Russia investigation. As for the Committee itself:

The Committee did not seek to prove or disprove the assertions in the dossier. Instead, the Committee explored Steele's methodology, explored the information available on Steele's subsources, examined how the FBI handled Steele as a source, and sought to understand how the FBI investigated the assertions in Steele's reporting.

In a December 2018 Lawfare report titled "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective", the authors described how, after two years, they "wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele's original reporting." To make their judgments, they analyzed a number of "trustworthy and official government sources" and found that "These materials buttress some of Steele's reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." They concluded with:

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.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far.

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." Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate, although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true.

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.

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.

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.

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, a man described by James B. Comey as a "Russian agent". Mifsud, who claimed "substantial connections to Russian officials", said he had just returned from Moscow, where he learned the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails. This occurred concurrently with the Hillary Clinton email controversy, but before the hacking of the DNC computers had become public knowledge.

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'."

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 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. When Donald Trump Jr. learned of the offer, he welcomed it by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it." Later, on June 9, 2016, a meeting in Trump Tower was held, ostensibly for representatives from Russia to deliver that dirt on Clinton. Instead, the meeting was used to discuss lifting of the Magnitsky Act economic sanctions that had been imposed on Russia in 2012, a move favored by candidate Trump.

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 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."

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.

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. John Brennan and James Clapper testified to Congress that Steele's dossier played no role in the intelligence community assessment, testimony that was reaffirmed by an April 2020 Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report. The committee found that the Steele dossier was not used by the assessment to "support any of its analytic judgments". 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."

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.

Newsweek said "the dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed" by the ODNI assessment. 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."

The Mueller Report backed "Steele's central claim that the Russians ran a 'sweeping and systematic' operation ... to help Trump win". 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.

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."

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. 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." 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.

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. Stone denied this and accused Cohen of lying to Congress. Stone was later convicted before being pardoned by Trump, and it was confirmed that Stone had been in contact with WikiLeaks.

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."

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".

John Sipher reported on this dossier allegation and the documentation of the Russian efforts to harm Clinton. 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." 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." 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". Aaron Blake examined two studies that indicate these efforts "made a significant difference...[and] may well have cost Clinton the presidency".

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, "managed" a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". The "conspiracy" is not proven, but the "co-operation" is seen as proven.

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

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."

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'."

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. 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.

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".

Kompromat and "golden showers" allegations

Exhibit 38. Texts between Rtskhiladze and Cohen

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). Igor Danchenko alleges that "Trump was with some powerful Russian oligarchs, who brought the sex workers." There he had "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him" 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 as kompromat. 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.

Thomas Roberts, the host of the Miss Universe 2013 pageant, confirmed that "Trump was in Moscow for one full night and at least part of another. (November 8–10). 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. The next day, Facebook posts showed he was at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. 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.

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". The sincerity of Trump's denials was doubted by Comey who, after Trump lied to him, came to believe the incident may have happened.

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'." 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." In their 2019 book, the founders of Fusion GPS report that Steele received the "hotel anecdote" from seven Russian sources.

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.

On August 25, 2024, Rolling Stone revealed that Danchenko "still believes — despite never having viewed it, despite his evidence really only being rumors and innuendo that he gathered but that many discredit — that there's a pee tape":

The rumor Danchenko says he heard during his half-dozen trips to Russia in 2016 goes like this: ... Trump, in Russia for the Miss Universe contest, was staying in the presidential suite at the Ritz-Carlton. It was the same suite Barack and Michelle Obama once stayed in. Trump was with some powerful Russian oligarchs, who brought the sex workers. According to Danchenko, several sources in Russia — sources he still won't reveal — told him rumors about what Trump did next: He instructed the sex workers to pee on the bed... 'They kind of had a laugh about it,' Danchenko continues. 'To me it sounds like this stupid college prank.'.. [He believes the] pee tape hijacked the dialogue of serious allegations about Russian influence with huge geopolitical importance... 'I still think there's some leverage they hold against Trump. You want to call it pee tape? Call it pee tape.'

Previous knowledge of compromising tapes

The Senate Intelligence Committee report indicates that in late 2013 Trump learned of rumors about tapes of himself with prostitutes in Moscow, and "Footnote 112" in the Mueller Report suggests that Trump may have already heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. "Footnote 112" describes how, on October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen exchanged a series of text messages with Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a friend and businessman who had worked with Cohen on Trump's real estate projects. Rtskhiladze reported that he had successfully "Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so u know. ..." Rtskhiladze told Mueller's investigators that these were "compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia." Cohen told investigators "he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze". Rolling Stone reported that "Rtskhiladze's description of the tapes' content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier".

Mueller's office "twice interviewed Rtskhiladze" (April 4, 2018 and May 10, 2018), and his story changed between interviews. "Footnote 112" covers both interviews. The footnote shows that Rtskhiladze later (5/10/2018) changed his previous (4/4/2018) testimony to Mueller by claiming that the "tapes were fake", but District Judge Christopher R. Cooper cast doubt on that claim. He said Rtskhiladze "undercut" his claim by speaking as if getting recorded was a real consequence of indiscretions committed around Agalarov/Crocus, and because Rtskhiladze's own words indicated "that the tapes may have been real":

As for Rtskhiladze's professed belief that the tapes were fake, that suggestion is somewhat undercut by Rtskhiladze's statement, only present in the Senate Report, suggesting that the tapes may have been real, and that they were 'what happens when you visit crocus I guess.'

Both Judge Cooper and the Senate Intelligence Committed seemed skeptical of the claim. The Senate report notes the lack of evidence for that claim in the partially blacked-out "Footnote 4281" that says "did not identify evidence of a later call from Khokhlov".

Cohen was deposed by the House Intelligence Committee, and he provided a history of the alleged tapes. He described the tapes stopped by Rtskhiladze as "the infamous pee tape when Mr. Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant". Cohen testified he became aware of the tape in "late 2013 or early 2014, shortly after the Miss Universe 2013 pageant and significantly prior to the 2016 U.S. election cycle" and told Trump about the rumor at that time. The Senate 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." He had then asked Rtskhiladze for help: "In 2014 or 2015 Cohen asked a friend, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, to find out if the tape was real," and on October 30, 2016, Rtskhiladze contacted Cohen with news that he had succeeded in stopping the tapes.

When Representative Jackie Speier asked Cohen: "It wasn't infamous then, was it?" he replied: "Yes, yes. That the tape - the conversation about the tape has gone back almost a couple months past when they were there for the Miss Universe Pageant that that tape existed." (p. 227) When Speier asked "So you're suggesting you've known about the rumors about this tape for many years before October 30th?" he replied that he had talked to "many people" about the pee tape over the years.

It was only after the Steele dossier's publication in 2017 that Trump publicly mentioned the rumor and focused his ire on the dossier as if it were the creator of a new rumor. Some other sources did the same. Trump and some sources falsely claim Steele "made-up" the rumor or that it was "born" because of the dossier. In fact, Trump already knew about reports, "separate from" the much later Steele dossier, of "alleged compromising tapes of him in Moscow":

The Committee's Report also shows that prior to and during the campaign, Trump was informed of alleged compromising tapes of him in Moscow. These allegations are separate from Christopher Steele's reports, which were not used to support the Committee's work. The Committee found that the Russian intelligence services clearly engage in the collection of compromising information for leverage, and that there may be substance to some of the allegations regarding Trump, which leaves open an ongoing concern about Russian influence operations.

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" by Crocus Group owner Aras Agalarov, his son Emin, Ike Kaveladze, Rob Goldstone, Michael Cohen, Keith Schiller, and others, where Trump was photographed and the group stayed "for several hours". The club featured "risque performances" and, according to Cohen, Trump watched a golden showers performance "with delight".

The Agalarovs were also linked to several other events involving Trump, including the invitation to share "dirt" on Clinton at the Trump Tower meeting 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. 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" came from a Russian who was accompanying Emin Agalarov". 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].

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. 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."

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."

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."

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, and that he looked like "Putin's puppet". Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wondered "if Russians have something on Trump", and former CIA director John Brennan, who has accused Trump of "treason", tweeted: "He is wholly in the pocket of Putin."

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". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi questioned Trump's loyalty when she asked him: "[Why do] all roads lead to Putin?"

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 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."

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."

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.

Max Boot 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: 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.

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". 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.'"

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.

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

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". It was later confirmed that Roger Stone was in contact with WikiLeaks.

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 for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP". (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." The New York Times reported that Assange told Democracy Now! "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention".

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."

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 kickback payments to Manafort. 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. Manafort has denied receiving the payments. 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".

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".

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. 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."

Dossier source(s) allege that Page secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin on that July trip. Page denied meeting Sechin or any Russian officials during that trip, but he later admitted under oath that he met with Sechin's senior aide, Andrey Baranov, who was Rosneft's chief of investor relations. According to Harding, Baranov was "almost certainly" "relaying Sechin's wishes". 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'". Newsweek has listed the claim about Page meeting with Rosneft officials as "verified".

Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong. Page's congressional testimony confirmed he met with Andrey Baranov, who was Rosneft's chief of investor relations, and Page conceded under questioning by Adam Schiff that the "potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft" might have been "briefly mentioned". 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".

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. In April 2019, the Mueller Report concluded that their investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with Russia's interference efforts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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. 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.

Within days after the inauguration, new Trump administration officials ordered State Department staffers to develop proposals for immediately revoking the economic and other sanctions. 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." 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. 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. 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.

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. In January 2019, Trump's Treasury Department lifted the sanctions on companies formerly controlled by Deripaska. Sanctions on Deripaska himself remained in effect.

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, to arrange for payments to the hackers, cover up the hack, and "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine". McClatchy reported in 2018 that a phone of Cohen's was traced to the Prague area in late summer 2016. The April 2019 Mueller Report states "Cohen had never traveled to Prague". The December 2019 Horowitz Report stated that the FBI "concluded that these allegations against Cohen" in the dossier "were not true".

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.

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", a claim that The Spectator reported in July 2018 was "backed up by one intelligence source in London".

In August 2018, The Spectator reported that "one intelligence source" said "Mueller is examining 'electronic records' that would place Cohen in Prague." 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. 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.

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".

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."

Also in April 2019, the Mueller Report mentioned that "Cohen had never traveled to Prague" and presented no evidence of the alleged Prague meeting, thus contradicting the dossier and the McClatchy report. 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". 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. 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".

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. Matt Taibbi wrote that news reports of the Cohen-Prague allegation were "either incorrect or lacking factual foundation". CNN interpreted the Horowitz Report as saying that the dossier's Cohen-Prague allegation was untrue.

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." 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'."

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."

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. 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.

Dossier source(s) allege that "the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine". 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." 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." 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." 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. Although the Trump team denied any role in softening the language, Denman confirmed that the change "definitely came from Trump staffers".

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." Paul Manafort falsely said that the change "absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign". 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.

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." 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." 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." Harding adds that Trump repeatedly "questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers". 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."

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.

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."

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. Kalugin was the head of the economics section at the Russian embassy. He returned to Russia in August 2016. McClatchy reported that the FBI was investigating whether Kalugin played a role in the election interference. Kalugin has denied the allegations.

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" has been confirmed by an unsealed report by FTI Consulting in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others.

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.

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." 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".

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".

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" 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. 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. 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." 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".

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.

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." 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:

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)

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." In some cases, public verification is hindered because the information is classified.

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".

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.

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. (p. 172)

Writing for The New York Times, Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage described the dossier as "deeply flawed". Savage described it as generally unreliable. Both have also described it as a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions". Ryan Lucas described it as an "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material about President Trump's alleged ties with Russia".

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. (p. 102)

"Independent evidence about Trump as a potential victim of sexual blackmail emerged soon after the publication of the dossier." 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.

While also mentioning that "nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it", 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".

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." Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes wrote that "the current state of the evidence makes a powerful argument for a serious public inquiry into this matter".

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".

On March 30, 2017, Paul Wood reported that the FBI was using the dossier as a roadmap for its investigation. 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.

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. 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." 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 in terms of establishing FISA's low bar 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."

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."

Officials told CNN this information would have had to be independently corroborated by the FBI before being used to obtain the warrant, but CNN later reported "it's now clear that this level of verification never materialized". Steele told the FBI that Person 1 was a "boaster" and "egoist" who "may engage in some embellishment", "caveats about his source" that the FBI omitted from its FISA application. 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".

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".

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."

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."

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.

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.

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".

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

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".

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. Sipher has written that "Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the [dossier] reports seriously since they were first published."

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."

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

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". (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'".

Varied observations of dossier's veracity

Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate, although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true. 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'." 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."

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".

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. 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".

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. 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."

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. Comey also said he could not say publicly whether any of the allegations in the dossier had been confirmed.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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."

Subject of investigations and conspiracy theories

Investigations

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, 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". 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". ABC wrote that "For the FBI, the dossier was essentially just another tip" that must be investigated.

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, 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.

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".

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".

Conspiracy theories and claims about dossier

Conspiracy theory it was trigger for start of investigation

The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative is a disproven right-wing alternative narrative, sometimes identified as a set of conspiracy theories, 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", and that the Steele dossier triggered the Russia probe. These conspiracy theories have been pushed by Trump, Fox News, Republican politicians like Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Trump's Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, and Trump's Attorney General William Barr.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. Instead, it was the activities of George Papadopoulos that started the investigation. 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. 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." 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." 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.'

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". Durham also confirmed "it was not until mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received several of the Steele Reports".

Durham "debunked a prolific Trump lie about the Steele dossier – that it was the reason why the FBI started investigating his campaign in 2016... This false claim has been refuted dozens of times over the years, in official Justice Department documentation, bipartisan reports from Congress, and numerous court filings.... The situation was all the more interesting because Trump has repeatedly acted as a cheerleader for Durham... On Tuesday, Durham inadvertently affirmed a basic truth about the Russia probe that Trump has lied about for years.

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.

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. 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."

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" or only a "smart part" of the FISA application?

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". McCabe pushed back and said his testimony had been "selectively quoted" and "mischaracterized". He also "denied having ever told Congress that the [FISA] warrant would not have been sought without information from the dossier".

Adam Schiff said the FBI had a "wholly independent basis for investigating Page's long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier". 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 "the Justice Department possessed information 'obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page", 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 in terms of establishing FISA's low bar 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."

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.'

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."

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.

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".

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. 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, and that Clinton's deleted emails are in Ukraine.

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. 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. 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.

According to Eric Lutz, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan have pushed a conspiracy theory that the dossier was "based on Russian disinformation". 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".

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".

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, to arrange for payments to the hackers, cover up the hack, and "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".

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

Cohen's passport showed that he entered Italy in early July 2016, and that he left Italy in mid-July 2016, from Rome, Italy. 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. Roger Friedman reported sources quoting van Zandt's wife, Maureen, as saying that she and Steven were in Rome, and never traveled to Capri. 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. A December 2018 statement from Steven van Zandt's Twitter said that he had met Cohen in Rome and not traveled together. 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.

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.

Aleksej Gubarev

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

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."

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. 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.

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."

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. 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.

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.

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."

Reactions to dossier

November 14, 2017 – House Intelligence Committee transcript of Glenn Simpson

August 22, 2017, Fusion GPS testimony transcript of Glenn Simpson

Trump

Donald Trump's first Twitter reaction to the dossier was a January 10, 2017, tweet: "FAKE NEWS—A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!", a view echoed the next day by the Kremlin: "absolute fabrication". 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.

Trump has called the dossier "fake news" and criticized the intelligence and media sources that published it. 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. 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".

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'."

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

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. [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.

Others

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".

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." Putin called the people who leaked the dossier "worse than prostitutes" and referred to the dossier itself as "rubbish". Putin went on to state he believed the dossier was "clearly fake", fabricated as a plot against the legitimacy of President-elect Trump.

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."

Among journalists, Bob Woodward called the dossier a "garbage document". Chuck Todd of CBS News labeled the report "fake news". Carl Bernstein said "It's not fake news, otherwise senior-most intelligence chiefs would not have done this." 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."

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.

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." 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.

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.

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 for allegedly making false statements to the FBI about the distribution of the dossier's claims, specifically possible "inconsistencies" in what Steele told authorities and "possibly lying to FBI officials". Senator Lindsey Graham also signed the letter. 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'." 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.

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. The next day, ranking committee member Senator Dianne Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript.

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."

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. WHCA noted that "[t]hanks to this CNN investigation, 'the dossier' is now part of the lexicon".

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."

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".

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

Litigation

Main article: Litigation involving Steele dossier

Multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Steele dossier, primarily involving defamation claims by plaintiffs such as Aleksej Gubarev, the three owners of Alfa-Bank (Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan), Michael Cohen, Devin Nunes, Giorgi Rtskhiladze and Carter Page against Christopher Steele, BuzzFeed, Oath, Orbis, Democratic National Committee and others. All of these defamation cases, except one, were dismissed or withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

Carter Page unsuccessfully sought damages in a lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and several former U.S. government officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Donald Trump also filed unsuccessful lawsuits against Hillary Clinton, Steele, Orbis, and others.

See also

• Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections – 2017 US government report
• Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President — What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know – 2018 book by Kathleen Hall Jamieson
• Cyberwarfare by Russia – Various types of cyberwarfare used by Russia against many nations
• Foreign electoral intervention – Interventions by foreign governments in elections
• Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–16)
• The Plot to Hack America – Non-fiction book by Malcolm Nance
• Russia–United States relations – bilateral relationship between Russia and the United StatesPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• Russian espionage in the United States – Espionage against the United States of America committed by the Russian Federation
• Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump – 2018 book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn
• Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections – All the Trump Russia timelines
• Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? – 2017 filmPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback

Дальнейшее чтение

Книги

• Хардинг, Люк (2017). Сговор: секретные встречи, грязные деньги и то, как Россия помогла Дональду Трампу выиграть . Случайный дом . ISBN  978-0-525-52093-1 .
• Мейер, Барри (2021). Напуган: досье Трампа, черный куб и рост частных шпионов . Ассистент ​ ISBN  978-0-06-295068-0 .
• Симпсон, Гленн ; Фрич, Питер (2019). Преступление в процессе: внутри досье Стила и расследования GPS Fusion Donald Trump . Случайный дом . ISBN  978-0-593-13416-0 .
• Стрзок, Питер (2020). Скомпрометирован: контрразведка и угроза Дональда Дж. Трампа . Хоутон Миффлин Харкорт . ISBN  978-0-358-23706-8 .

Новости, журналы и сайты

• Аркедис, Джим (12 января 2017 г.). «Оценка досье Buzzfeed , бывшим аналитиком разведки» . Стартап .
• Бруггман, Люсиен; Моск, Мэтью (17 октября 2021 г.). «Столкнувшись со своими критиками, Кристофер Стил защищает спорное досье в первом крупном интервью» . ABC News .
• Грант, Сара; Розенберг, Чак (14 декабря 2018 г.). «Стил досье: ретроспектива» . Законодательство .
• Гросс, Терри ; Симпсон, Гленн ; Фрич, Питер (26 ноября 2019 г.). «Основатели Fusion GPS о усилиях по российским усилиям по севу раздора:« Они преуспели » . Свежий воздух . ЭНЕРГЕТИЧЕСКИЙ ЯДЕРНЫЙ РЕАКТОР .
• Гамбургер, Том ; Helderman, Rosalind (7 февраля 2018 г.). «Герой или нанятый пистолет? Как бывший британский шпион стал вспышкой в ​​расследовании России» . The Washington Post .
• Хардинг, Люк (19 ноября 2017 г.). «Скрытая история первой поездки Трампа в Москву» . Политик (отрывок из сговора его книги ).
• Майер, Джейн (12 марта 2018 г.). «Кристофер Стил, человек, стоящий за досье Трампа» . Житель Нью -Йорка .
• "Стил досье" . Московский проект . 11 ноября 2017 года. Архивировано с оригинала 1 августа 2021 года . Получено 3 февраля 2022 года .

Правительственные источники

• «Свидетельство Гленна Симпсона в досье Трампа - Руссия» (PDF) (отредактированный транскрипт). Опрошены Судебным комитетом Сената США . Официальный веб -сайт Сената США сенатора Дайан Файнштейн . 22 августа 2017 года.
• «Свидетельство Гленна Симпсона в досье Трампа - Руссия» (PDF) (отредактированный транскрипт). Интервью Комитетом по разведке Палаты представителей . Официальный веб -сайт Палаты представителей США . 14 ноября 2017 года.
• «Грассли зопеды оппозиционной исследовательской фирмы за необоснованным досье Трампа» (пресс -релиз). Официальный веб -сайт Сената в США сенатора Чака Грассли . 27 марта 2017 года.
• Постоянный отборочный комитет Палаты представителей по разведке по российским активным мерам (PDF) (отчет). 22 марта 2018 года.
• «Открытие ранжирования комитета по разведку Шиффа во время слушания по российским активным мерам» (пресс -релиз). Официальный веб -сайт Schiff в США. 20 марта 2017 года.
• См.: Раздел IV B. «Стил Досье: его происхождение и обработка», стр. 846-930. Комитет по разведке Сената (18 августа 2020 года). «Отчет 116-xx. Отчет отборочного комитета по разведке Сенат Соединенных Штатов о российских кампаниях по активным мерам и вмешательство в выборы в США 2016 года. Том 5: Угроза контрразведки и уязвимости» (PDF) . New York Times .
• «Текст рассекреченного меморандумы о расследовании ФБР в России» . Ассошиэйтед Пресс . 24 февраля 2018 года.
• «Отчет Мюллера: Отчет о расследовании вмешательства России на президентских выборах 2016 года. Объем I и II» . Министерство юстиции . Март 2019 года.

Сроки

• «Приложение C. согласованная хронология ( дело Gubarev v Orbis №: QB-2017-002808)» (PDF) . Судебный . 30 октября 2020 года.
• «Интерактивная временная шкала: Стил Досье и судебные процессы» . Ассошиэйтед Пресс . 2 июля 2018 года.
• «Сроки: изготовление досье Стила» . The Washington Post . 6 февраля 2018 года.

Внешние ссылки

• Бенсингер, Кен; Старейшина Мириам; Шуфс, Марк (10 января 2017 г.). «Эти сообщения утверждают, что Трамп имеет глубокие связи с Россией» . BuzzFeed News .
• Фергюсон, Сара (6 июня 2018 г.). «Трамп/Россия: Следуй за деньгами» . Четыре угла . Архивировано с оригинала 7 июня 2018 года.
• Слен, Питер (11 декабря 2019 г.). «Интервью с Симпсоном о преступности в процессе » . C-Span Book TV .
• Лушер, Адам (2 февраля 2018 г.). «Кристофер Стил: супер-шпионский или хитрый писатель досье? Секретный мир человека, стоящего за просочившимся документом Трампа» . Независимый .