This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Espionage Mid‑importance Steele dossier is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Russia: Politics and law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]: 851

(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.^[1]: 852

(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:^[1]: 902

(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.^[1]: 907

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."^[1]: 902
• "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."^[1]: 852

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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",^[1]: 902 with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.^[a]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".^[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."^[3] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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."^[1]

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.^[2]

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:^[3]: 396

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"^[3]: 396 and devoted a whole section to him and his associates: "Artem Klyushin, Konstantin Rykov, and Associates".^[3]: 395 They were deeply involved in election interference efforts in Ukraine and later in the United States.^[3]: 397 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.^[4]

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."^[5]

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".^[6] In earlier statements, an FBI official stated Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful,^[7] or had reportedly told the RNC chair that their servers were secure,^[8] 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.)^{[7][9][8][10]} One state Republican Party (Illinois) may have had some of its email accounts hacked.^[11]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

??? "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^[12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[13]

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)[reply]

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.^[14] 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."^[15]

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.^[16][17] with some Russian officials arguing about how much to interfere in the election.^[18]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."^[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"^[a] memos that were considered by Steele "to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".^[2][3][4]

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.^[5]

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)^[5]

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.^[5]

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)^[5]

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.^[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]

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",^[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]

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)[reply]

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.^[b] 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,^[b] others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,^[7][8] and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.^[9][10][5]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Some editors fought tooth an nail over keeping a long stretched and tattered collection of rumor threads alive. Not even the author of the dossier wanted the credibility assigned that was given to the dossier by wikipedia "Reliable Sources".

So much of this situation was third hand reporting of rumors and so much made wikipedia citations that lasted for better part of a decade. 2601:248:C000:147A:C86:3EBF:C9FE:D503 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this post, I identify six factual inaccuracies in the Steele Dossier article and propose targeted revisions to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards. BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have givin each a section heading so it's easier to deal with each one. Also added signature to each one and bolded and/or indented certain elements for ease, all per WP:REFACTOR. I hope I haven't done anything that negatively affects your intentions. Feel free to undo any of my edits that are not improvements. There is a lot here, so let's work together to get this right. It's complicated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

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

The Republican operation, from October 2015 to May 2016, focused on Trump's domestic business and entertainment activities; was performed by Fusion GPS; and used Wayne Barrett's files and public sources."

The term "Republican operation" is factually incorrect and misleading. The Washington Free Beacon, which funded the initial phase of Fusion GPS’s opposition research, is an independent conservative-leaning publication funded by Paul Singer, a prominent conservative donor. (Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html) It is not affiliated with the Republican Party. Referring to this phase as a "Republican operation" creates a false impression that the Republican Party, or its official entities, were involved in commissioning or funding the research.

In contrast, the term "Democratic operation" used for the later phase of Fusion GPS's work is accurate, as this research was directly funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign. (Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93)

The false equivalence between these phases violates Wikipedia's Editing policies vis a vis a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) by misrepresenting the distinct origins and funding sources of the research.

Additionally, the cited sources (footnotes 35 and 36) explicitly refute any connection between the Free Beacon’s research and the Steele dossier. For example:

- The Free Beacon's statement:

"All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."

- Testimony from Michael Goldfarb:

"I feel very confident that no material that was produced and delivered to us appears in that dossier. It was all new information to me when I read it."

These statements confirm that the Free Beacon’s funding and Fusion GPS’s initial research were entirely separate from the Steele dossier. The term "Republican operation" conflates unrelated phases of research, creating a narrative unsupported by reliable sources and violating Wikipedia's Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policy.

The article must be revised to adhere to Wikipedia’s content standards. For example, the paragraph could state:

"Fusion GPS was initially hired in October 2015 by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump’s domestic business and entertainment activities. This research, which concluded in May 2016, was funded by Paul Singer, a conservative donor, and was unrelated to the Steele dossier. Later, Fusion GPS was retained by Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign to conduct further opposition research, including work that led to the Steele dossier."

This revision ensures accuracy by removing misleading language, properly contextualizing the two phases of research, and avoiding false equivalences between them. It also adheres to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies, presenting a clear and factual distinction between the Free Beacon’s independent funding and the Democratic-aligned funding of the Steele dossier.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

“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.”

This claim relies on three sources, including a Law360 article dated February 11, 2021, and two Bloomberg Law articles. However, the phrasing is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies. The court’s ruling did not confirm the accuracy of the Steele dossier’s claims or Page’s alleged activities. Instead, it focused on defamation law principles, including the “fair report privilege” and the determination that the articles were “substantially true.”

The Law360 article and Judge Karsnitz’s opinion clarify that the court found the articles accurately reflected public allegations and government investigations into Page, which Page himself acknowledged. For example, the ruling states:

“As a general matter, the article simply says that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating reports of plaintiff's meetings with Russian officials, which plaintiff admits is true, and led to his surveillance for over a year under FISA warrants. The article does not claim that Plaintiff actually met with those officials.”

Page’s admission was limited to the fact that investigations occurred and that he was under surveillance; it does not constitute an acknowledgment of the Steele dossier’s allegations or the truth of the articles beyond their reporting on these investigations. Presenting this as a judicial validation of the Steele dossier misleads readers and implies a connection unsupported by the sources.

Legal Misinterpretation and Context from the Judge's Opinion

The article’s phrasing also misconstrues Judge Karsnitz’s legal reasoning, which centered on the “substantial truth” and “fair report privilege” doctrines under defamation law. These doctrines protect reporting on government proceedings if the reporting is fair and accurate, even if the allegations themselves remain unproven. Specifically:

Substantial Truth: The court ruled that the gist of the articles—that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating Page—was true, regardless of whether the Steele dossier’s underlying claims were verified. Fair Report Privilege: The court found that the articles were protected as fair and accurate accounts of government investigations, stating:

“The Isikoff Article provided a fair and accurate report of these proceedings... As a fair and accurate report of this investigation, the Isikoff Article is protected.”

The judge did not evaluate or endorse the Steele dossier’s claims about Page but rather assessed whether the media reports accurately described public allegations and investigations. Thus, the assertion that “Page admitted the articles… were essentially true” conflates the court’s findings with the dossier’s veracity, creating a misleading narrative.

Proposed Revision

To address these issues, the paragraph could be revised as follows:

“On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost regarding their reporting on allegations involving his potential contacts with Russian officials, as mentioned in the Steele dossier. The court found that the articles accurately reported on government investigations into Page and were either true or protected under the ‘fair report privilege.’ The ruling did not address the veracity of the Steele dossier’s claims.”

This revision accurately reflects the scope of the court’s ruling, avoids implying validation of the Steele dossier, and adheres to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following passage contains a factual inaccuracy:

"The dossier was written from June to December 2016 and contains allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.[6] Several key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient"[7] because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[8][9] and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[8][10] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[8] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.[11][12]"

The paragraph claims that the ODNI and Mueller reports “corroborated” the Steele dossier’s depiction of “numerous secretive contacts” between Trump officials and Russian operatives. However, upon examining the cited evidence:

Neither the ODNI assessment (January 2017) nor the Mueller Report (2019) endorses or authenticates the dossier’s details about clandestine or conspiratorial meetings. Footnotes 11 and 12 (NYT and WaPo) discuss undisclosed or mischaracterized communications (Flynn–Kislyak, Manafort–Kilimnik, etc.) but do not conclude these validated Steele’s narrative.

Crucially, footnote 7 (“prescient”) stresses that parts of Steele’s reporting about Russia’s general preference for Trump “have proved broadly accurate” but concedes other parts are unverified, such as Michael Cohen’s alleged Prague trip.

Hence, the statement that ODNI/Mueller “corroborated” the dossier’s specific claims about numerous secretive contacts is a leap beyond what any of these sources actually affirm.

The ODNI’s conclusion on Putin’s preference addresses Russia’s motivations and hacking efforts (DNC hacks, social-media influence). It does not confirm that Steele’s specific stories of clandestine Trump–Russia meetings are accurate. There’s a sharp distinction between “Russia wanted Trump to win” and “the Dossier’s secret contacts were confirmed.”

Mueller did not substantiate the dossier’s most central and specific “secret” meeting claims—like Michael Cohen in Prague or a Carter Page–Rosneft quid pro quo. While Mueller documented real contacts (Manafort–Kilimnik, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting), these do not match the dossier’s alleged scenarios. Indeed, one of the most notable dossier allegations (Cohen/Prague) remains unverified or contradicted by Cohen’s testimony.

The NYT piece (footnote 11) tallies all known communications—meetings, emails, phone calls—for many campaign figures, but never attributes those findings to the Steele dossier or calls them “corroboration” of it. Likewise, the WaPo discussion (footnote 12) focuses on Flynn’s phone calls with Russia’s ambassador and subsequent legal fallout—again, no mention of validating Steele’s allegations.

Even footnote 7 (the New York Times article calling parts “prescient”) distinguishes between the more general assertion that Russia wanted Trump to win (which turned out to be true) and the unverified or false allegations (e.g., the Cohen-in-Prague trip). Being ‘prescient’ on Russia’s preference does not mean every contact claim in the Dossier was corroborated.

By treating the ODNI and Mueller’s conclusions as a blanket confirmation of Steele’s contact allegations, the passage injects editorial opinion that these official reports “proved” or “corroborated” all of the Dossier’s claims.

Cited sources must actually support the asserted statement. Here, the sources never state that “many Trump campaign officials had numerous secretive contacts” in line with Steele’s dossier specifics.

Readers deserve an accurate distinction between (1) broad findings about Russia’s interference and (2) the still-uncorroborated or disputed specifics in the Dossier.

Proposed Revision

A more accurate summary (Im not proposing this precise change, just something akin to it) would read:

“While the ODNI and the Mueller Report each concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump, neither report corroborated the Steele dossier’s specific claims of ‘numerous secretive contacts’ between Trump campaign officials and Russian agents. The ODNI’s focus was on Russian hacking and propaganda efforts, and Mueller, though identifying multiple undisclosed or disputed interactions (e.g., Manafort–Kilimnik, Flynn–Kislyak, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting), did not validate the dossier’s particular narratives (such as a purported Cohen trip to Prague). Thus, although official findings align with the dossier’s general assertion that Russia favored Trump, they do not confirm the Dossier’s more sweeping allegations of clandestine coordination.”

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, "Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI[50] for information unrelated to the Russia investigation,[51]" is slightly factually inaccurate and misrepresents the timeline and nature of Steele's relationship with the FBI.

FBI records confirm that Steele remained a paid CHS for the FBI while assembling the dossier. Although the payments he received during this period were not directly linked to the dossier, they were for concurrent work on unrelated matters. The critical detail is that Steele was actively engaged with the FBI in a paid capacity during the dossier's compilation, undermining the claim that his status as a CHS ended prior to this work.

For instance, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report explicitly states:

"FBI records show that Steele's last payment occurred on August 12, 2016, and was for information furnished to the FBI's Cyber and Counterintelligence Divisions (CD) that was unrelated to the 2016 U.S. elections."

(Page 173, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, December 2019, Revised). This evidence establishes that Steele's paid status overlapped with his dossier-related activities, even if the payments themselves were for separate matters. By asserting that Steele's role as a CHS ended "prior" to the dossier, the statement ignores critical nuance and distorts the timeline of events.

This misrepresentation creates a misleading impression of Steele’s independence during the dossier's creation, which is particularly significant given the dossier’s role in subsequent FBI investigations. A more accurate portrayal of Steele's status underscores the FBI’s ongoing reliance on him during this critical period, which is pertinent to discussions about his credibility.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

"Gubarev has denied all accusations made in the dossier.[257][258] The accusations are twofold, as they mention Gubarev and his companies. While it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes,[7][401][402] Andrew Weisburd has said that 'Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing.'[258]"

This statement is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies. The claim that "it has been proven that [Gubarev’s] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" overstates the evidence presented in the cited sources and fails to accurately reflect the nuanced and contested allegations made in the Steele dossier.

The Steele Dossier’s Allegations

The Steele dossier made the following claims about Aleksej Gubarev and his companies:

“[redacted] reported that over the period March-September 2016  
a company called 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. Entities linked to one Alexei GUBAROV were  
involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under  
duress by the FSB, Seva KAPSUGOVICH, were significant  
players in this operation. In Prague, COHEN agreed contingency  
plans for various scenarios to protect the operations, but in  
particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary  
CLINTON won the presidency. It was important in this event  
that all cash payments owed were made quickly and discreetly  
and that cyber and other operators were stood down / able to go  
effectively to ground to cover their traces.”

These claims can be broken into two distinct components:

1. Allegations Against XBT/Webzilla and Affiliates:

  - XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates allegedly engaged in activities such as:
    - Using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses.
    - Planting bugs and stealing data.
    - Conducting "altering operations" targeting the Democratic Party leadership.

2. Allegations Against Gubarev Personally:

  - Gubarev, along with another individual (Seva Kapsugovich), was allegedly recruited under duress by the FSB to play a "significant role" in these operations.

Misrepresentation of Evidence

The current claim in the Wikipedia article that "it has been proven that [Gubarev’s] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" misrepresents the evidence available, which is far from conclusive:

FTI Consulting Report:

  - The FTI report, commissioned by BuzzFeed as part of its defense in Gubarev’s defamation lawsuit, concluded that infrastructure owned by XBT/Webzilla was likely exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors. However, it explicitly stated that there was no evidence of direct involvement by Gubarev or his employees:
     "I have no evidence of them [Gubarev or his employees] actually sitting behind a keyboard.”
  - The report also noted that hosting companies like XBT/Webzilla are often unknowingly exploited by bad actors due to the nature of their services.

  - The FTI report acknowledged that XBT’s infrastructure was also used by non-Russian cyber actors, including groups tied to China, North Korea, and Spain. This undermines any claim that XBT was uniquely complicit in Russian cyber operations.

  - The FTI report has not been independently corroborated. Its findings were produced during litigation and remain contested, with cybersecurity experts like Eric Cole emphasizing the absence of "actual supporting evidence" linking XBT/Webzilla to specific cybercrimes.

  - The federal court dismissed Gubarev’s defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed, ruling that BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier was protected as a fair report of matters of public interest. The court did not validate the dossier’s claims, and Judge Ungaro noted that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations against Gubarev.

Violations of Wikipedia Policies

1. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV):

  - The phrase "it has been proven" falsely implies that there is definitive evidence establishing Gubarev’s companies' involvement in cybercrimes. This violates the requirement to present information neutrally, especially when the evidence is contested.

2. Verifiability (WP:VERIFY):

  - The reliance on the litigation-commissioned FTI report, without acknowledging its limitations or contested nature, undermines the claim’s verifiability. No independent or government investigation has corroborated the dossier’s allegations against Gubarev or his companies.

3. Failure to Address Counterevidence:

  - The article omits critical context, such as the rebuttals provided by cybersecurity experts and the broader industry pattern of hosting providers being unknowingly exploited by malicious actors. This omission skews the narrative and violates Wikipedia’s commitment to balanced representation.

Proposed Revision

To correct these inaccuracies, the paragraph should be revised as follows:

"Aleksej Gubarev

Gubarev has denied all accusations made in the dossier.[257][258] The Steele dossier alleged that Gubarev’s companies, XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates, were used between March and September 2016 to conduct cyber operations against the Democratic Party leadership, including using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, and steal data. It also alleged that Gubarev was recruited under duress by the FSB to play a significant role in these operations. A report commissioned by BuzzFeed during litigation suggested that infrastructure owned by Gubarev’s companies may have been exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors.[7][401][402] However, the report found no evidence directly linking Gubarev or his employees to these activities, and cybersecurity experts have noted that web-hosting companies are often unknowingly exploited for such purposes. Andrew Weisburd stated that 'Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing.'[258]"

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

"By August 22, 2017, Steele had provided [the FBI] with the names of the sources for the allegations in the dossier."

This claim relies on an ABC News article dated August 22, 2017, which cites anonymous "people briefed on the developments" to assert that Steele provided the FBI with source names. However, this source is vague, lacks corroboration, and fails to specify whether Steele’s descriptions were accurate or verified. In contrast, the December 2019 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report explicitly documents significant discrepancies between Steele's representations and the sub-sources’ own accounts. For example, Steele claimed that a sub-source had direct access to a senior Russian official, but the sub-source (Igor Danchenko) denied ever meeting or speaking with that official (OIG Report, p. 192).

The ABC News article’s reliance on anonymous sources, coupled with the absence of subsequent corroboration, renders it inadequate to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the authoritative findings in the OIG report directly contradict the assertion that Steele provided accurate source names by August 22, 2017. The Wikipedia article must reflect these documented contradictions to adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards.

For example, the article should state:

"While some reports suggested Steele provided source names to the FBI by August 22, 2017, the December 2019 Office of the Inspector General report documented significant discrepancies between Steele's descriptions and the sub-sources’ statements, raising doubts about the reliability of his source identification."

This revision ensures the article accurately reflects the authoritative evidence, avoiding reliance on weak or unverifiable sources.

See the official records which suggest Mr. Steele did not supply accurate names or descriptions for the sources of the dossier:

"In Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele also made statements that conflicted with explanations from two of his sub-sources about their access to Russian officials. For example, Steele explained that the Primary Sub-source had direct access to a particular former senior Russian government official and that they had been "speaking for a while." The Primary Sub-source told the FBI, however, that he/she had never met or spoken with the official. Steele also stated that one sub-source was [statement redacted in report] one of a few persons in a "circle" close to a particular senior official. The FBI obtained information from the sub-source that contradicted Steele's interpretation." Page 192, Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, December 2019 (Revised) (Source: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf)

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).