Talk:Steele dossier

Second sentence of article "efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, is factually wrong, and contradicted by source material

The current statement in the article, "The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation," is not accurately supported by the cited source. The source cited, "Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities" from the Senate Intelligence Committee report, does not use the terms "short-lived," "limited," or "weak" to describe the FBI's corroboration efforts. Furthermore, it does not state that the FBI stopped all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017.The relevant quote from the report (page 847) states:"(U) The Committee found that, within the FBI, the dossier was given a veneer of credibility by lax procedures, and layered misunderstandings. Before corroborating the information in the dossier, FBI cited that information in a FISA application. After a summary of the uncorroborated information was later appended to the ICA, the FBI also briefed it to the President, President-elect, and Gang of Eight, while noting that it was unverified." This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it. The assertion "efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017" should be removed as it is not supported by the cited source and appears to be an interpretation rather than a fact stated in the report. BostonUniver (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"Efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations were limited and weak." was added on 7 August 2024, one of many recent changes by Valjean. Reverting will improve. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would support removal of unsourced or OR material. Also that is a primary source and should not be used that way. It looks like a lot of primary sources are used in violation to our basic sourcing polices. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are synonyms and an accurate paraphrase, but only if one looks at the exact parts I cite. Unfortunately, I can't do that right now. I'll explain it when I'm back to civilization with wifi and my PC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we are finally back from our camping trip in the Trinity Alps. Very little internet coverage there. Usually, I can catch lots of trout, but this time no luck. We are usually there earlier in the season when the fish are plentiful, and there are lots of nice swimming holes. Otherwise, it's beautiful country with few people.

I have split off other topics into their own sections to be dealt with separately. First of all, I will remove the latest version from the lead so we can analyze and discuss it here. I am not wedded to that exact wording. I just tried to summarize what the sources said, and that sourcing could be improved in the body.

Current wording (begun), now removed:

The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.

I'll return to this section after leaving some remarks in the next sections. Please wait before adding more to this section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a look at these complaints and see which ones have some merit and which don't. Right off the bat, I see two issues to deal with. Please use these numbers and keep discussion about each in its own thread. We may have to create separate sections.

Number 1. There may be merit to the complaint about my choice of words. These are issues that can be fixed, so let's discuss them and see if we can come up with a better description of what the sources say:

("efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.") Synonyms, paraphrasing, etc. are not exact sciences, and I certainly have no patent on always getting it right, so other editors' input is welcome.

Here are some sources for 1:

(U) In May 2017, the SCO was established, ending FBI's attempts to corroborate information in the dossier. In the end, few allegations were definitively corroborated, and SCO said its own leads and research overtook work to verify Steele's findings.

(U) A further restriction on the Committee's investigative efforts was the centralization of information regarding the dossier within the SCO and the SCO' s decision not to share that information with the Committee. FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI. After that point, the Committee has limited insights into how or whether SCO pursued the dossier at all. SCO did not share the results of any further inquiries, to the extent any were undertaken, with the Committee. Special Agent in Charge David Archey briefed the Committee in July 2019 on the SCO's investigative process and information management:

We [the SCOJ 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. 5666

Archey 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.

(U) FBI Counterintelligence Division's efforts to investigate the allegations in the dossier were focused on identifying Steele's source network and recruiting those people to serve as sources for, or provide information to, the FBI. FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor. The FBI pursued FISA coverage of Carter Page in October 2016, including information from the dossier, but at the time it had very little information on Steele's subsources or corroboration of Steele's information.

(U) As of May 2017, when the SCO began its own investigation, the FBI had taken the following investigative steps:

(U) The Committee reviewed a redacted version of that spreadsheet, which reflected progress made until May 2017, when the SCO began its work and FBI halted efforts on the dossier.

My sources for the Senate Committee's criticizms of the FBI:

• "FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor."
• "FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."

My wording was: "short-lived, limited, and weak" Feel free to improve on that.

Those sources address 1. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I developed the body by adding precise page numbers to sources and a quote as a note. See here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a new version, using exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources:

The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.

How's that? It is attributed and sourced better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has objected or suggested other changes to this new version that resolves the old version's "short-lived, limited, and weak", I have now installed this new version It resolves the issues mentioned by adding attribution, exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The current phrasing in the Steele Dossier article, specifically the statement “The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,” is cherrypicking of statements stripped of the larger context of the Senate report.

First, the phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” offers an overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's credibility. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are more critical and suggest that key aspects of the dossier were found lacking in credibility. This wording gives undue weight to the idea that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible, which is not fully supported by the available evidence.

Moreover, the criticism of the FBI’s efforts, as cited, is out of context. The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place. The exact wording from page XIV of the report's Findings section reads:

“Regarding the Steele Dossier, FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record. FBI used the Dossier in a FISA application and renewals and advocated for it to be included in the ICA before taking the necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele's credibility. Further, FBI did not effectively adjust its approach to Steele's reporting once one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier. The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.”

This makes clear that the report primarily criticized the FBI for placing undue trust in the dossier, rather than for a lack of thoroughness in corroborating it. The omission of this context in the article misleads readers into thinking the Senate’s critique was aimed at investigative shortcomings, when the real issue was the FBI’s initial overreliance on Steele’s reporting.

For the sake of neutrality and accuracy, it is important that this section of the article be revisited and revised to reflect the full scope of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings. Misrepresentation of sources undermines the objectivity expected of Wikipedia articles, and this issue requires correction to maintain (at least some) the integrity of the entry. BostonUniver (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! You mention "that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible". I think "credible" is the wrong word, as it leans toward "probably true", or when you say "were found lacking in credibility", that leans too much toward "is probably not true". Isn't that the meaning? Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't read your mind.

In fact, we don't know for sure about many of them. The subject matter experts at Lawfare wrote: "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," but "none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven". So none has been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible".

Giving too much "credence" in that FISA situation is a matter related to "an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." He had a good reputation, but maybe it wasn't as good as some thought? They should have checked first. That was unrelated to the allegations in the dossier, but to Steele. (The reputation of the source affects the initial credence lent to the allegations.) Later, they learned that Danchenko's source network was exceptionally good, so Steele was supplied with information he still believes is basically true, but hard to verify as sources went to ground in fear over Putin taking revenge on them. Trump and Barr made sure that Putin learned about them by declassifying the classified info about sources and methods. Really patriotic!

The phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” simply doesn't lean either way and is a real attempt to remain neutral and not introduce editorial bias. You seem to want to word it so it leans toward "is likely untrue", but we don't know that. "Unproven" does not equal "untrue". Right? It could be true or false, so we say "unproven" or "uncorroborated".

The full context of "the FBI’s efforts" cannot be provided in the lead, but we could provide more in the body. There is already mention of the fact that it was very problematic for the FBI to use unproven dossier claims in their FISA applications. (FISA applications often use unproven suspicions. Suspicions do not have to be proven to justify opening an investigation. They are literally opening a fishing expedition.) I'm trying to find a way for your concerns to be included, so will, with this exact matter, include the quote you provided. It's good, and it's related to existing content: "Officials told CNN this information would have had to be independently corroborated by the FBI before being used to obtain the warrant,..." I put it there. See here. Is that better?

"The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing." Indeed! Steele was not very cooperative, and the actions of Trump and Barr proved his caution was fully justified. Trump did indeed expose Steele's sources to danger. That he was reticent to reveal too much about them does not have anything to do with the quality of their reports. Those reports could still be true, but we don't always know enough to really know, do we? That is now included.

BTW, I'm glad you are reading the Senate Intelligence Committee report. It's pretty good stuff, far better than Mueller. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You write: "The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place." Both are true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If both are true, why is the very first paragraph of this article only alluding to the FBI's failures to corroborate rather than also the issues with his dossier such as "one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier"? It does no good to bury this fact thousands of words down in this overly long article, when the crucial introductory paragraphs remain biased and cherrypicked. BostonUniver (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, when I say "both are true", I mean that the FBI did criticize the FBI's lax investigation, AND, in relation to the FISA applications, the "FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." at that time. (Bold added) Both are true. I explain why the focus is more on Steele than on the allegations, which were later shown to have come from a very good source network that had been reliable before, and the FBI hired Danchenko, who turned out to be a remarkably well-connected asset, one of the best they ever had. See Steele_dossier#Value_as_FBI_source

We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body. The description of Steele's sources was an issue in the trial of Danchenko by Durham. The right-wing media and Trump supporters tried to make a big deal out of it, so be careful you don't do that here, as it wasn't a big deal at all.

There were two things that happened that muddied up the reporting about individual sources: Steele and Danchenko tried to protect their sources, especially from Trump and Putin, as explained above, and the sources were scared and tried to backtrack and minimize what they had said, as noted by the report. (So the sources tried to lie their way out of it.)

Even right-wing conservative 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 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." (bold added) All charges against Danchenko for lying were dismissed and he was exonerated. The allegations ("information itself") themselves were not questioned, only the source descriptions. Durham's bogus investigation, a real cover-up operation for Trump, was a total failure, and is still a source of disinformation for those who don't understand the issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Number 2. I'm not sure I understand this second complaint and therefore question its merits. Maybe it's just me, so help me understand it: ("This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it.") What comes before that does not relate to May 2017. It is a fact that the FBI made efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations, and my wording does not deny that. It also had to give up fairly quickly as it could not contact the original sources. (It also had a rather "devious" motive as it wanted to contact those sources and employ them as confidential human sources for the FBI to use.) It is also a fact that the FBI misused the dossier by using some of its words that were not as yet, and maybe never could be, corroborated to support the FISA warrants on Carter Page. (It is also a fact that some politicians and FBI personnel have asserted that the dossier was not essential to those applications, and that they were on the cusp (50/50) of doing it anyway, even without citing the dossier. While interesting, that is another matter and not relevant to this discussion.) So, I think this second complaint needs to be explained better. Boil it down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

References

"Steele was the first..."?

2. In the second paragraph of the article it is stated "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump." The source for this claim is an Op-ed written by Paul Wood in The Spectator's Coffee house section, [1]https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was-the-pee-tape-a-lie-all-along-/. There doesn't appear to be any other source to back up this claim.

The first report in the Steele Dossier was dated 20 June 2016.[2]https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/02/steele-dossier-trump.pdf

However, on June 14 2016, The New York Times and other media reported; "two groups of Russian hackers, working for competing government intelligence agencies, penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to emails, chats and a trove of opposition research against Donald J. Trump, according to the party and a cybersecurity firm." [3]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html

At this point it would have been apparent to some that this was part of an effort by Russia to assist Donald Trump, given the Kremlin's interest in him over Clinton. For example, see articles like "From Russia with love: why the Kremlin backs Trump" from Reuters, March 2016 - [4]https://www.reuters.com/article/world/from-russia-with-love-why-the-kremlin-backs-trump-idUSKCN0WQ1LY/ BostonUniver (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You are quite correct about 2 -- I think this was raised before on this talk page, Steele was not the first.

In general, this whole article has issues with large swaths of OR from primary sources, and quoting opinions as facts in various places. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Endwise:, I have started a new section to deal with your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes 2's been raised before on this talk page in 2017 and in 2021 but without effect. Re "In general, ...": in general attempts to fix are met with opposition and I'd not be optimistic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

BostonUniver, that's a good catch, but it's an apples vs oranges situation. A Russian preference is not the same as a "covert operation to elect" Trump. The Russians have always had "preferences", but have never cooperated with an entire presidential campaign that was willing to fully cooperate, both openly and covertly, with the Russians to get the Russian's preferred candidate elected. This was a new situation. Russian intelligence started preparations in early 2014 (or late 2013, see below) and expanded their efforts on all fronts, developing their election interference into the "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 elections. When Trump became the GOP's chosen candidate, they focused their efforts to help him. Their efforts have never stopped, their preference is unchanged, but they are adding more facets to their efforts. The 2024 Tenet Media investigation is just one facet. The Russians are pumping huge amounts of money into right and far-right media supportive of MAGA and Trump.

That NYTimes source says nothing about a Russian preference for Trump or any attempt to help him. If anything, it suggests that the Russians could exploit the DNC's opposition research on Trump, and that would not be good for him as a person, but it would enable them to better blackmail him as they support his candidacy. Be careful not to synthesize that source with your March 2016 source. That source expresses some Russian preference for Trump, but it says nothing about a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That was Steele's contribution, and he was right. Here's the new version with proper attribution:

According to Paul Wood, "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."

Trump had obviously discussed his presidential plans with Russians when he was in Moscow for the November 2013 Miss Universe pageant, so Russians knew, long before Americans, that Trump was going to run for president in 2016, and they promised to help him. He was even photographed by Yulya Alferova (Yulya Klyushina) and others while huddling with some of those who later worked in the election interference efforts to aid Trump's campaign. This was potentially known by the few Americans who watched Yulya Alferova's tweets and pictures she posted during the pageant in early November 2013 and during January 2014. Yulya Alferova's significant January 22, 2014, tweet is still available and quoted below.

Alferova worked for the Agalarovs and Crocus Group to help "organize Trump's Miss Universe contest". The Senate Intelligence Committee report implied that Aras Agalarov and his Crocus Group were part of a Russian intelligence effort to compromise and gain leverage over Trump.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report's "Footnote 2510" mentioned her tweets, one shortly after the Miss Universe pageant, showing she had foreknowledge, long before the American public, of Trump's planned presidential run. She promised Russian support for his candidacy:

On January 22, 2014, Klyushina wrote on social media that, 'I'm sure @realDonaldTrump will be great president! We'll support you from Russia! America needs an ambitious leader!'; On January 28, 2015, Klyushina announced on Twitter that Trump would be running for President of the United States. Tweet, @AlferovaYulyaE, January 28, 2015. The Committee has no insight into the nature of Klyushina's knowledge of these matters or what prompted these statements.

This Russian support was later manifested in the "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 elections, which included efforts by her then-husband, Artem Klyushin. The Senate Committee had "significant concerns regarding [Artem] Klyushin" and devoted a whole section to him and his associates: "Artem Klyushin, Konstantin Rykov, and Associates". They were deeply involved in election interference efforts in Ukraine and later in the United States. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to revise the piece, but the new version still falls short in highlighting that Paul Wood’s op-ed in The Spectator is a rather unconventional interpretation of the Dossier. For example, a 2019 analysis by The Washington Post noted that "a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee." [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/ Given this, I’m uncertain why Wood’s opinion, published in a low-reliability outlet, is placed so prominently—appearing as early as the fourth sentence of the article. BostonUniver (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@BostonUniver: I like that you are taking the time to analyze this and also to speculate about it. That is allowed on talk pages. Speculation and SYNTH violations are allowed on this page. That's all part of how we try to figure out what really happened. Now do RS back up our speculations? In the end, it is what RS say that gets included, without any trace of the editorial discussions and speculations that occurred behind the scenes. So, press on. This is good. Let's analyze this.

On May 18, 2016, the public are informed that BOTH presidential campaigns are targeted by hackers, but does not say if they were successful:

He did not indicate whether the attempted intrusions were successful or whether they were by foreign or domestic hackers. Nor did he specify whether the websites or campaign networks of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders or Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump were targeted.
We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

On June 14, 2016, the public learns that Russians have hacked the DNC (and "gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump") and also targeted the Clinton and Trump campaigns, RNC, and Republican figures (they never succeeded in hacking Clinton's private server):

"The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available."

So the public learns that BOTH parties are being attacked. There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". This June 14 report leaves the impression that the Russians were successful in all their attacks, something we later learn was not entirely true. The public just thinks the Russians are attacking the elections and both presidential campaigns, something they had already been told on May 18, 2016.

The Republicans were also hacked to some degree, but we later learned that information was not released in the same way as the DNC material. From Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Hacking of Republicans:

On January 10, 2017, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia succeeded in "collecting some information from Republican-affiliated targets but did not leak it to the public". In earlier statements, an FBI official stated Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful, or had reportedly told the RNC chair that their servers were secure, but that email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached. (Over 200 emails from Colin Powell were posted on the website DC Leaks.) One state Republican Party (Illinois) may have had some of its email accounts hacked.

So, returning to your quote: "But a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee."[6] Yes, such a case could be made, but the public learned about attacks on the DNC and the RNC. Both campaigns were attacked, and the public knew about it. So "a case could also be made", but a very weak one, that the public thought that the attacks were part of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That part is Steele's interpretation, and he was right.

(These timelines are very informative: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#June_2016 and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day).)

So, do you still think that "case could also be made" is strong enough to be worth also mentioning Kessler's much later speculation from April 24, 2019? He's normally very good, but this time he seems to be "a bit off". I don't currently see it, but maybe you can persuade me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your argument to keep a op-ed from The Spectator on Steele being the first while dismissing the Washington Post analysis article as "a very weak [case]" is interesting and original, and would be relevant as your original published research. Are you able to provide more high quality sources on the claim that Steele was "first to warn"? Perhaps as you insist on keeping this claim you should "persuade us", the readers of Wikipedia without resorting to your personal views? BostonUniver (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've re-read your response multiple times and what I can understand is that you are not defending the point was "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump", which is what the page currently says. Instead you are defending the notion that Steele was first to warn of his theory of collusion, which is not what the page says, nor what I'm disputing.

See your analysis of the contemporary new sources of the DNC hack "There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump"."

It was not especially challenging to find the following from Vice's Motherboard from June 16, 2016: "But why would Russia want to hack the DNC? First of all, it would make sense just from an intelligence collection standpoint. That’s what spies do. But in this election cycle, there’s another reason: the Russian government would like to have Donald Trump as president.

“Look, the coming elections is of high priority for Russia as many people close to the Kremlin believe that Trump could help to lift the sanctions and ease the tensions between Russia and the US,” Andrei Soldatov, an independent journalist who has written extensively about Russia’s surveillance powers, told Motherboard in an email.

And hacking the DNC and embarrassing Hillary Clinton would help with that." [7]https://www.vice.com/en/article/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack/ BostonUniver (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

??? "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is what the lead used to say. Now it says "According to Paul Wood, "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump." That's not really a "collusion" twist because it says nothing about Trump's involvment or collusion, only the Russian's actions. But you're right that Steele was indeed proposing that there was active cooperation between his campaign and the Kremlin, and that's described as collusion. Whether there was a "conspiracy" to cooperate has not been proven, but the cooperation has been proven in spades.

Your source demonstrates that some sources were speculating at Russia's motives. The end of the article says: "Let’s spell this out,” Rid said. “We have a foreign intelligence agency that is picking sides, that is doing a sophisticated hack and influence operation in support of the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the US general elections. That’s craziness, if that’s actually the case." They were speculating.

Steele didn't guess or speculate. He said it to the FBI, with evidence besides just the hacking. Are you suggesting that he might have gotten the idea from stuff he read? That's certainly possible. I'm sure he read everything available. Yet his Russian sources were telling him stuff that confirmed those speculations, and he provided many unknown details to back them up. Those details were not what Vice or other sources were saying.

To see if we can find a way forward here, please propose improved wording, with sources (including Wood's source), that would resolve this to your satisfaction. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim that "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is misleading, as shown by the Motherboard source. While the current phrasing shifts this to Paul Wood's opinion that "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Trump," it's still not entirely accurate. I see the argument has now shifted to saying "Steele was the first to warn the FBI," which could be true—though it's possible other sources warned the FBI earlier, those weren't made public.

The point is, any sources who gave such warnings didn't actively publicize their findings by sharing them with the media in the way Steele's dossier was eventually leaked. This distinction matters when considering the dossier's visibility and influence.

My suggestion is to revise the passage to avoid overinflating the dossier's significance without clear justification. Cite a proper source that makes a verifiable, balanced point. Whether the dossier was "first" in any particular way isn't for me to decide, but the text should reflect a more cautious view.

I’m also not opposed to Paul Wood being cited, but balance is needed. For example, why not include this perspective from a CIA analyst who helped write the initial 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference? He recently told *Rolling Stone* that the Steele Dossier was "garbage" and "a joke" [source: Rolling Stone]. It would provide a fuller picture of how the dossier was viewed by intelligence professionals. BostonUniver (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting with the last... . We already include many very negative personal opinions, and many clearly false ones, about the unvetted allegations, and, unfortunately, those opinions are often used to judge the whole dossier, which is just plain careless and false. Even a judge ruled against Trump's nonsense denials. So we need to be careful to not overload the article with such opinions as people think that unproven equals false. None have been proven false. We already have many negative descriptions in the body, and a few examples in the lead. We also have an RfC that says not to say "unverified" allegations in the lead, at least not without clarification.

Back to the analyst.... He was suddenly confronted with unvetted allegations and expected to include them in the ICA report, which would have been very wrong, and it didn't happen. His reaction was understandable at that time. I doubt he was used to seeing such raw intelligence. His reaction was similar to the reactions of those who describe the dossier as "discredited". That word has many meanings, but one aspect is false to apply to the dossier. It is not proven false. It is just disappointing to those who mistakenly think it's a collection of proven facts. It never was. It never pretended to be. The disappointment is then used as an accusation against the dossier, and that's unfair. It is the reader's fault. It is their false expectations that are "discredited".

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.

What we're dealing with here is not the general opinions of all stripes about the dossier, or even about the unproven allegations. We already deal with them. Here we are solely dealing with the allegations that turned out to be true, and only one of them. Let's stay on point here.

Please attempt to formulate something that includes the various sources we mention above. Summarizing conflicting views can be difficult, but these are not really conflicting. They are more like variations on the same theme. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflict written while the 22:17, 26 September 2024 comment above was posted. I'll respond to it.

This is not "original published research" in the article. On this talk page, we all express our opinions. The Spectator is a RS that mostly publishes opinions, which are perfectly acceptable content when attributed and framed properly, and more importantly, the author is a renowned correspondent, journalist, and subject matter expert. We value such opinions, and his opinion is worth documenting. I don't know if there are others who make the same claim, but neither have I seen any RS contradict it. Above, I have looked at the sources we know of on the topic of early reporting, and they don't contradict Wood's assertion either. In fact, they can't be used to build a case against it as it's an apples vs oranges situation.

So, lacking anything else, we cite the opinion of an experienced expert on the topic. That's pretty much par for the course here. It's how we roll. We don't use our own opinions to undermine a source, unless we can use other RS to do it. If we had other RS that contradicted Wood, you'd have a strong case. I'd love to see other RS that can be used as evidence either way for this situation.

While the mention in the lead was added on 15:51, 8 August 2024, the attributed mention in the body has been there since 19:03, 24 April 2023, so about 17 months. I added attribution to the lead on 21:34, 21 September 2024 after your reasonable request.

This is worth mentioning in the lead as Steele's warning was just one of the notably true and "prescient" claims Steele made, and they show that Steele had some good sources, and, according to the FBI, Danchenko was also exceptionally well-connected. Steele, Danchenko, and Galkina all had sources in the Kremlin itself, and the CIA had a key one, mentioned below, whose reporting aligned with some of Steele's reporting. He was a mole who had to be extricated quickly, with his family, because of the danger posed by Trump. Trump would likely have told Putin about him, and he would have been killed. Several other key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient" because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and the Mueller Report. Simpson and Fritsch write that:

"a spy whose sources get it 70 percent right is considered to be one of the best,” and that, while reporters focussed on the most salacious details, they “tended to miss the central message,” about which they say Steele was largely correct. They note that, in his first report, in June, 2016, Steele warned that Russian election meddling was “endorsed by Putin” and “supported and directed” by him to “sow discord and disunity with the United States itself but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance”—six months before the U.S. intelligence community collectively embraced the same conclusion. Steele also was right, they argue, that “Putin wasn’t merely seeking to create a crisis of confidence in democratic elections. He was actively pulling strings to destroy Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump,” an assessment the U.S. intelligence community also came to accept. And they note that, as of September, 2019, U.S. officials confirmed that the C.I.A. had “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."

BTW, Steele was not the first to "know" that there was a covert effort to support Trump. British intelligence (and seven allied foreign intelligence agencies) first knew (starting in 2015) and alerted the CIA chief, John Brennan:

"GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents,.."

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

In late August and September Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them the agency had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump to win the presidency, the New York Times reported. with some Russian officials arguing about how much to interfere in the election.

Read more here: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets

That information from GCHQ was part of the reason for opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but it wasn't enough on its own. It was the "intelligence from other partners" (Australian info about Papadopoulos) that provided the necessary legal probable cause to justify opening the investigation. Brennan's actions to protect America are part of the real reason that Trump removed Brennan's security clearance.[8] He didn't want Brennan revealing anymore damning information about Trump's cooperation/collusion with Putin's attacks on America. Don't forget that Trump took top-secret Russia intelligence that is STILL missing since the end of his term.[9] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The article quotes Paul Wood, stating, '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.' This is problematic for several reasons. First, Wood’s piece is an opinion, not an objective analysis, and yet it’s cited in a way that implies authoritative weight in the opening paragraph. Worse, it's a quote within a quote, relying on vague language like 'foundational initial assertion,' which adds little clarity. Why should an indirect defense of Steele and his dossier, quoted second-hand, be given such prominence? The lack of critical rigor and objectivity here is disappointing and undermines the credibility of the article BostonUniver (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That wording was first added here as a solution to a discussion here with you. Here is the current version of that part:

According to Paul Wood, "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."

Attributed opinions, especially from a subject matter expert like Wood, who is so well connected with the intelligence community, are allowed in Wikipedia articles, but.... let's simply remove that from the lead. I think we can live without it there. Does that help? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

References

First paragraph: need to clarify BuzzFeed's 'fair report privilege' defence was based on Steele Dossier being part of official proceedings

In the opening paragraph of the article, it’s noted that the Steele Dossier “was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission.[2] Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticised by journalists.[20][21] However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action, stating that the public has a right to know so it can ‘exercise effective oversight of the government.’[22]”

While this passage correctly mentions the judicial defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the Dossier, it leaves out some key legal context. The ruling wasn’t just about the public’s right to know, but was grounded in the "fair report privilege." This legal principle protects media outlets when they report on official proceedings, even if the information is unverified or part of a non-public investigation. Without this context, the passage risks giving the impression that the court broadly defended BuzzFeed’s actions, when in fact the protection came from this specific legal shield.

The source cited (Variety) clarifies this right at the beginning: “A federal judge ruled in favour of BuzzFeed in a defamation lawsuit over its publication of the so-called ‘Steele dossier’ in January 2017, ruling that because the document was part of an official proceeding, the site was protected by fair reporting privilege.” [10]https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/buzzfeed-steele-dossier-trump-1203093603/

To be accurate, the article should explain that the court’s ruling wasn’t a general defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish, but rather a legal protection based on the fair report privilege. This is a crucial distinction, as it shows that BuzzFeed was shielded because the Dossier was connected to an official proceeding, not because of a broad endorsement of the public interest. Full judgment: [11]https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000167-c8cb-d657-a37f-dcff49f10000 BostonUniver (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Too much detail for the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting everything I wrote should be inserted instead, if the sentence could be changed to something like "However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action on the basis that the dossier was part of an official proceeding, and therefore protected by fair reporting privilege" BostonUniver (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have now installed that version. Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing

You argue, “We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body.” If we cannot present the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions without cherry-picking and distorting them, then we should not reference the Committee’s findings in the lead at all.

The current phrase in the lead, “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown,” is a wildly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee paint a far more critical picture, especially concerning Steele’s sources. They did not merely criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier, as you suggest. The Committee’s core criticism lies in the fact that the FBI gave unjustified credence to Steele’s reporting, despite its clear lack of rigor and transparency. The report explicitly states:

“The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.”

The second half of the first paragraph in the article is not logically consistent as a continuation of the previous sentences:

“Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed.[b] The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,[6]: 902 with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.[c]”

This construction is misleading. It suggests that no one knows whether the Steele dossier's main claims are true or false. In reality, the dossier’s core claims have been widely debunked. As of 2024, outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC, NPR have referred to the dossier as "discredited." Your version insinuates that the primary reason these claims remain unverified is due to the FBI’s poor efforts at corroboration. This is a distortion of the facts. The FBI’s failure was not merely in corroboration but in lending credibility to a flawed and unsubstantiated document in the first place. Misrepresenting the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings in this manner does a disservice to the actual evidence laid out in the report. Why not reduce the bloat in the lead and remove any distortions by taking out the following: "Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation." BostonUniver (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't want to be overly optimistic nor overly negative, considering the dossier is an unfinished draft document that was never intended to be seen by the public and was submitted to the FBI for vetting:

It was published without permission in 2017 as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable" memos that were considered by Steele "to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".

My point is, don't make the mistake of sources that carelessly and baselessly throw around the word "discredited" as if that means "proven false", when they are unfairly blaming the dossier for their own failure to judge the dossier according to its actual unvetted, not disproven, draft status. Those careless sources are the ones at fault, but instead of admitting they have been careless, they unfairly blame the dossier for not being a fully finished and fully vetted product.

People mistakenly get the impression that "discredited", which is a very vague word, means the allegations are proven false, but there is no evidence they have been proven false. None. A few RS have mistakenly used the word "false", but when one looks for evidence, they provide none. They should have written "unproven" or "uncorroborated", and many other sources have more accurately done that. It's better to cite the sources that do that, rather than those which have been careless. Here we look at all the sources and can choose the most accurate.

The "further investigation" by many over the years has finally settled down. Early reports, including the Mueller report and Senate report, did not have the benefit of the current status. We now have a much better idea of their current "verification status", which alludes to these three general possibilities:

1. Proven true: The dossier’s core claims have been resoundingly confirmed by the FBI, ODNI, and Mueller report, contrary to your claim above. (Maybe you consider some other claims as "core claims"?
2. Unproven: Lots of them are still in limbo, neither proven nor disproven. Even the one about Cohen in Prague is in limbo, with Steele still believing it might be true, McClatchy, a very RS, refusing to retract the evidence the uncovered, and Cohen lying about it with a false alibi that was debunked, so that shows his consciousness of guilt. The pee tape allegation is also unproven and not disproven. Trump repeatedly lied about that, which Comey described as revealing his "consciousness of guilt". (Why do supposedly innocent people lie about these things? Hmmm.) So suspicions still linger. They are both "unproven" allegations.
3. Proven false: No serious allegation has been proven false. None.

The lead must touch on the topic of the verification status of the allegations as they are always an important focus of commentary on the dossier and an important part of the body of this article. The question is where it should be covered here. We currently do it in two places (which I will mention later and deal with).

The subject matter experts at Lawfare give us a great status report. 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." (bold added)

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.

also this:

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," but "none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven". (bold added)

So none have been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible". It is not overly optimistic or overly negative, but a good NPOV description.

The four sentences you are complaining about are:

Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.

Let's remove the part that explains one reason why their status is still "unknown" from the lead, making it simpler:

The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.

That was added, after discussion here, to resolve some issues. Maybe it's just created other issues by adding too much detail about something that we cover well in the body. I just removed it. That makes it much easier to get an overview of what's left. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That leaves our coverage of the "veracity status" in the lead with these two, widely separated, statements, and they should be grouped together:

From the first paragraph:

Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown.

and this from the last paragraph:

... the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.

Because the one from the first paragraph is covered in the last one, let's just remove it!

Conclusion: A whole lot was removed. The "veracity status" is only mentioned in the last paragraph. Some may think it should be in the first paragraph, but let's wait to discuss that. What seems to have happened is some creep gradually occurred, with too much gradually added to the lead that should have just been kept in the body. Then it got to a critical level where it was noticed, criticized, discussed, and now, hopefully, resolved with a better lead.

Do those changes help to resolve some of your concerns? (Be careful to not get greedy now. ) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think removing those sentences was a good call. It reads much better now. Thanks BostonUniver (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and a BIG thanks to YOU! No article here is ever "finished". They always need updating, and sometimes the due weight status changes after some history has passed by, and something should be downgraded from the lead to only the body. I think that's what happened here, but it took you to notice the problem. The rest of us are too close to the situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References