Talk:Steele dossier

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Split

[edit]

How do we split this 500,000-byte article? RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7:, while I don't have any problem with the size (our size guideline lacks nuance for different types of articles and is also hopelessly outdated and no longer in step with current technology that would allow much larger articles), the History section is +106,323 and could be split off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Christopher Steele section could be split off to his own article. When we have an existing separate article, it makes it easier to use for such splitting off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep this alive, so I undid the autoarchiving. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues with "some allegations have been publicly confirmed" claim

[edit]

I've reviewed all six sources cited under Notes C to support the statement that "some allegations have been publicly confirmed" in the Trump-Russia dossier article. The sources do not support this claim and in some cases directly contradict it:

Intelligence Community Assessment - Doesn't mention Steele or dossier at all

CNN article #1 - Explicitly said NO allegations confirmed, only that some conversations mentioned occurred

ABC News article - About "broad implications" being confirmed, not specific allegations

Der Spiegel article - About things seeming "plausible," not confirmed

WSJ article - Inaccessible, but headline says Mueller "dismissed" dossier claims

CNN article #2 - Just reports that Mueller's team met with Steele, doesn't confirm anything

So yes, six sources, and not a single one actually supports Wikipedia's claim that "some allegations have been publicly confirmed."

Every source either explicitly contradicts the claim, doesn't mention the dossier, talks about broad themes rather than specific allegations, is inaccessible, or is completely unrelated to confirmation.

This is a comprehensive failure of sourcing. Wikipedia's statement is not just unsupported - it's directly contradicted by its own sources.

Perhaps most absurdly, Wikipedia cites contradictory assessments as evidence of confirmation: the ABC News source quotes an FBI official saying the dossier is "probably 90 percent baloney," while the Der Spiegel source claims Steele's friends say Steele himself believes it's "80 to 90 percent" accurate. Using directly opposing evaluations to support the same claim exemplifies the fundamental sourcing problems throughout this article.

This represents a violation of Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies. The statement should be removed or significantly modified to accurately reflect what the sources actually say. 2001:7D0:87C0:8C80:70A5:FBA:53DD:EFCE (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP2001, thanks for addressing this matter. I am going to examine it and get back to you, as you deserve an explanation, and if anything is not right, then of course we will fix it.
In the meantime, you can peruse this content from the lead that is related to the subject:

U.S. intelligence agencies have reported that Putin personally ordered the whole Russian election interference operation, codenamed Project Lakhta.[1][2][3][4] These agencies, the January 2017 ODNI report,[5] and the Mueller report have corroborated the following June 2016[6] dossier allegations: "that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected";[a] that Russia sought "to cultivate people in Trump's orbit";[a] that Trump campaign officials and associates had secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents;[8][9][10] that Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[5][11] that Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process";[5] and that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties.[5]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To initially deal with these complaints (without addressing or affirming them) and start the beginnings of a solution, I have simply removed the footnote attached to "publicly confirmed" from the lead and moved language up to the allegations that are confirmed. I will deal with the sourcing issues for that footnote later. That will take more work.

The basic fact that many allegations have been confirmed still stands, and there are good sources for that. The question remains as to which sources are the best ones to use in that footnote, as there are others that do document these facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gotten around to examining each of those sources yet, but out of an abundance of caution, I have removed the footnote for now and substituted it with the content from the lead. That content must be duplicated in the body anyway, so that's okay. Now I'll get around to examining those sources in the next few days. They are not use for that purpose anymore, so there is no problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP2001, I have now read all those sources again (after many years) and extracted key citations from each one. I have collected the abundant evidence for using those sources that you overlooked. Look here: User:Valjean/Publicly confirmed One could certainly discuss whether they are all the best sources to use, but in one way or another, they address the fact that quite a few allegations have been confirmed. Other sources do that job even better.

So it is still true that some allegations have been confirmed, some others that are likely true are still unproven, and none are proven false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very detailed, and while I have not exhaustively re-checked all of it, it looks correct to me. I am sure if any IPs or other editors want to quibble they can now do so thanks to Valjean's exceedingly well-researched source checking. Andre🚐 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the WSJ article. It indeed says "Some portions of the dossier have been validated." But a bit later it says "But many of the validated assertions were already percolating in the press and Western intelligence agencies by the time Mr. Steele began compiling the dossier", says that the Mueller investigation "lacks the lurid tales compiled by Mr. Steele", says that "the report undermined a crucial tale in the dossier", etc. WSJ could more appropriately have been used to support an opposite statement. The IP is right. I haven't looked at the subsequent changes of the Wikipedia page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that still supports what the article says, and doesn't mean the IP is overall right. Wikipedia's statements are supported. Andre🚐 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO we say "all of them"? Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. (The following is understood by you Steven, so it's addressed to others.) We make it clear that there are at least three classes of verification status for allegations: corroborated, uncorroborated (and likely never will be proven), and proven false. There are a number of important ones in the first class that are proven in spades, quite a few in the second, and, strictly speaking, none in the last. The two often placed in the last are the "Cohen in Prague" one and the "pee tape rumor". Both were defended with provably fake alibis, with no real evidence against, and the last one rated as "possibly" true by FIB Director James Comey and "plausibly" true by Trump's own lawyer Michael Cohen, who did not believe Trump's denials and carried out a hunt-and-suppress operation for the alleged tapes until they were finally "stopped" in October 2016. So that one is more likely true than false. So it's in the "uncorroborated" class.
We also document the criticisms and even absurd claims made, such as poor methodology (if judging an unfinished rough draft released without permission by the standards of more formal and fully verified documents, that's true, even though it's an illegitimate analysis), a totally fake hoax filled with Russian disinformation (no evidence for any of that), discredited (well, that can mean anything, so...), etc. even though some of those are ridiculously false claims.
So it's rather pointless to point out, in a discussion of whether there are any allegations that ARE corroborated, that there are claims that there are NOT corroborated. We know that, and the article says that.
The basic issue is the recurring claims that there are NO allegations that are true, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. We need to put that absurdity to bed. Some people won't even allow that there are "some allegations" that have been publicly confirmed. Not even "some"!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it's validated because it was known already, it's insignificant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Some claims in the dossier were validated. That is rather significant given others are trying to claim the dossier had been invalidated. So far, nothing in the dossier has been specifically invalidated, many things were validated, and other things are open questions. That is what the sources and the article say. Andre🚐 19:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and see how many disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I understand your point, but there are several aspects to that issue:

  1. No one claims that all allegations were somehow original or not referring to publicly known information. A few allegations are in that class. Steele's sources sometimes provided unknown background information that explained known events.
  2. There are a number of allegations that were later confirmed, and Steele had no way of knowing that would happen at the time the sources provided the information.
  3. Some of the most important allegations that were proven true were rated "prescient" because Steele's sources provided the information before anyone, including U.S. intellgence, had the information at the time, but later they, and the ODNI report, confirmed the allegations were true. Those include several of the ones listed in the lead.

The Wall Street Journal wrote: "And some of its views proved prescient, including that Russia saw his election as an opportunity to seed discord between the U.S. and its Western allies."[12]

The New York Times wrote:

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

John Sipher wrote (bold original):

The most obvious occurrence that could not have been known to Orbis in June 2016, but shines bright in retrospect is the fact that Russia undertook a coordinated and massive effort to disrupt the 2016 U.S. election to help Donald Trump, as the U.S. intelligence community itself later concluded. Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate. The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July 2017 published Don Jr’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?[13]

One must avoid moving the goalposts in desperate efforts to somehow find fault with the dossier and undermine the fact that a number of its allegations were proven true. I am not accusing you of doing that, but we see it happen all the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schick_2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lakhta_member_charged was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference officialsmasterspy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hosenball_8/19/2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference ODNI_1/6/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wood_8/12/2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Rosenberg, Matthew (March 14, 2019). "Tech Firm in Steele Dossier May Have Been Used by Russian Spies". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yourish_Buchanan_1/26/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Leonnig_Helderman_5/17/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sciutto_Perez_2/10/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levine_1/12/2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cullison, Alan; Volz, Dustin (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 2, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  13. ^ Sipher, John (September 6, 2017). "A Second Look at the Steele Dossier". Just Security. Retrieved January 4, 2024.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2025

[edit]

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/31/wikipedias-locked-steele-dossier-page-is-laced-with-lies-that-only-certain-users-can-correct/

Get your facts straight you liberal hacks!!! 50.4.187.197 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
  1. Semi-protected edit requests are only to be used for non-contentious changes, IOW start a discussion and get a consensus first.
  2. The personal attack is not appreciated.
  3. The Federalist is not a RS, and that article is filled with debunked conspiratorial nonsense and inaccuracies. See WP:RSP: "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions."
I'm surprised this edit request wasn't deleted on sight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tightened up the language in the lead and added another source and quote. The Federalist can attack the sources we use, but should not attack us for using reliable sources. That is what we do, and that will not change. The body even uses Jerry Dunleavy's good article in the right-wing Washington Examiner (we don't normally use it). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PapayaSF: you made a comment here (which Valjean deleted). It included the words E.g. the statement "it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment” has now been proven wrong. Does that mean you propose removing that phrase? If so, can you cite what says otherwise? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, did you read their whole comment? It was very unconstructive and unwikipedian, so I removed it in accordance with our normal NOTFORUM / DNFTT practice. We do not want to encourage direct attacks against our RS policy. I responded on their talk page: User_talk:PapayaSF#Your_comment_has_been_removed. A repeat of their egregious comment should get an immediate indef block as NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PapayaSF hasn't replied but the comment E.g. the statement "it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment” has now been proven wrong. is a legitimate matter for discussion so I looked a bit myself. The OP cited a Federalist article, which correctly says that Wikipedia's article has been semi-protected for years, Courcelles citing "persistent disruptive editing" added protected on 2 February 2018. The Federalist July 31 article correctly quotes this Wikipedia article's statement that the Steele dossier "did not play any role in the January 6, 2017 intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election" (though after July 31 the wording became "played no role"), and the cites for the Wikipedia article's statement point to the words of John Brennan. Relevant new information may be the recently declassified September 2020 report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or a 2025 press release by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, for example the statements On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months. After months of investigation into this matter, the facts reveal this new assessment was based on information that was known by those involved to be manufactured i.e. the Steele Dossier or deemed as not credible. That the dossier is incredible is not the thread topic, the matter here is that the ICA-related statement in the Wikipedia article is being contradicted, and not just by the Federalist article. I thank the OP 50.4.187.197 for pointing to it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are well aware of what nonsense Tulsi Gabbard (always carrying water for Putin) is up to. Stop believing unreliable sources. Nothing from this administration can be trusted. We do mention these issues because they are official and are mentioned in RS (and actively believed and pushed by unreliable ones), but we do it from a mainstream RS POV, not a Trumpish fringe unreliable source perspective.
The topic is being dealt with at:
You should read what RS say, so here's a selection. Just click "show":
The Federalist is a very unreliable source. See WP:RSP. Papaya was directly attacking RS. We don't allow that, and we do not support such editors. Don't carry water for them.
Gabbard is pushing far-right "Russiagate hoax" conspiracy theory nonsense (a pitiful rerun of Durham's failed attempts), and even Gabbard's nonsense does not dispute the fact that the Russians did interfere in the election. It quibbles with whether they actually supported Trump, but don't quibble that they interfered and tried to damage Clinton.
That Putin favored Trump is no secret, and he said so publicly. That Project Lakhta was Putin's plan to put Trump in power is a fact. That the CIA had an agent so close to Putin that he daily could photograph what was on Putin's desk, and that he related that Putin favored Trump, is also a fact. Trump is literally #PutinsPuppet.
When Trump was elected, and Steele's sources were in danger because of that, the CIA had to quickly exfiltrate that agent and his family to prevent his discovery and likely murder, because Trump would, of course, share classified information with Putin. BTW, the box of ultra-super-top-top classified documents about the Trump-Russia investigation and related Steele dossier stuff is still missing. Trump took it, and it has not been located yet. Those documents likely implicate Trump and his role in the whole mess.
Our article is correct. Gabbard is not a RS. The Federalist is not a RS. We will document what she says to some degree, but we will not treat it as true and factual.
Now if you have something constructive to say, on your own (not for Papaya), about the ICA Assessment and our content in this article, then feel free to voice it and provide the RS to back up any suggested changes. As always, no article, including this one, is ever finished or perfect, so improvements are always welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When Trump was elected, and Steele's sources were in danger because of that, the CIA had to quickly exfiltrate that agent and his family to prevent his discovery and likely murder, because Trump would, of course, share classified information with Putin."
Citation Please? 2601:248:C000:147A:3D43:9301:3CD1:15BC (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. We have this content in this article (and some from elsewhere):
In The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said the allegation that Trump was favored by the Kremlin, and that they offered Trump's campaign dirt on Clinton, has proven true.[1] Mayer also wrote that the CIA had a Russian government official working as "a human source inside the Russian government during the campaign, who provided information that dovetailed with Steele's reporting about Russia's objective of electing Trump and Putin's direct involvement in the operation."[2][3][4] The spy had access to Putin and could actually take pictures of documents on Putin's desk. Because of the dangers imposed by Trump's recent careless disclosures of classified information to Russian officials, the CIA feared their spy was in danger, so the government official and his family were discreetly exfiltrated during a family vacation to Montenegro.[5][6]
The US thus lost a spy who had worked for US interests for decades: "The person was key in providing information that led U.S. intelligence to conclude Putin directly orchestrated Russian interference in favor of Trump and against his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, the Times said."[3]
In December 2023, CNN reported about the "mystery of the missing binder":[7]
"A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump's presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed [...] In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found. The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government's assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election."
Frank Figliuzzi, a former Assistant Director for counterintelligence at the FBI, wrote that "The case of the missing binder is also a clue as to what Trump would likely do with classified information if he's given access to secret material again."[8]
I hope that helps. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"#PutinsPuppet" Putin's puppet ruler, Putin's stooge, Putin's bitch, etc. Donald has had that reputation for about a decade now, and it did not actually affect his position as a party leader. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b Mayer, Jane (March 12, 2018). "Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 6, 2018.
  2. ^ a b Mayer, Jane (November 25, 2019). "The Inside Story of Christopher Steele's Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  3. ^ a b "Trump's Loose Lips Force US to Extract Spy From Kremlin". Agence France-Presse. September 10, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  4. ^ a b Barnes, Julian E.; Goldman, Adam; Sanger, David E. (September 9, 2019). "C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to U.S. for Decades". The New York Times. Retrieved August 15, 2025.
  5. ^ Hohmann, James (September 10, 2019). "The Daily 202: CIA exfiltration of Russian asset underscores the importance of human sources". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  6. ^ Sciutto, Jim (September 9, 2019). "Exclusive: US extracted top spy from inside Russia in 2017". CNN. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  7. ^ Herb, Jeremy; Lillis, Katie Bo; Bertrand, Natasha; Perez, Evan; Cohen, Zachary (December 15, 2023). "The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump". CNN. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 15, 2023.
  8. ^ Figliuzzi, Frank (December 18, 2023). "The lesson of the missing Russian binder — and the former POTUS who yelled 'Hoax'". MSNBC. Retrieved August 3, 2025.


Dossier role for the ICA assessment

[edit]

I think eventually I'll start a thread specifically about the dossier role for the ICA assessment. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's better to deal with that here or at Talk:Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, but we don't usually want to scatter discussions. That just creates confusion. We do have quite a bit of coverage here, so this may be the best place. I'm just not sure. In either case, we can copy or adapt results from one to the other article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be relevant for you to read first. The basic facts are not affected by Gabbard's attempts to rewrite history:
"Gabbard’s claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents"

Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has been studied more than almost any other modern political event. At least five major investigations — including by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committees, two special counsels, and the Justice Department’s inspector general — confirmed Russia’s efforts to disrupt the election. [https://www.newsbreak.com/fort-worth-llc-333211895/4179772676293-gabbard-s-claims-of-an-anti-trump-conspiracy-are-not-supported-by-declassified-documents (source)

An older version is here: https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-russia-2016-steele-dossier-0452e1079506daa86d75fa0a2f22fc60 Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't create this new thread but okay ...
The topic is "Dossier role for the ICA assessment".
The suggestion is: remove "it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election,[38][39][40] and" from the lead.
The reasons are:
The first cite is Ex-CIA chief: Steele dossier played no role in intelligence assessment on Russia's election interference -- the ex-CIA chief is John Brennan and the cited article does not say he is correct.
The second cite is Former intel official: Trump-Russia dossier 'played no role' in our analysis of Russian meddling -- the intel official is Robert S. Litt and the cited article does not say he is correct.
The third cite is Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings which has sentences like "Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment. ... Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. ... and more, which supports the opposite of "played no role".
A recent press release by by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, New Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency, says "On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months. After months of investigation into this matter, the facts reveal this new assessment was based on information that was known by those involved to be manufactured i.e. the Steele Dossier or deemed as not credible."
A recent article about the new findings talks about the Steele dossier appendix of the ICA assessment, in New Reports on Russian Interference Don’t Show What Trump Says They Do: The newly disclosed material complicates that narrative. For one, it showed that Mr. Brennan internally defended appending a summary of the dossier to the assessment after C.I.A. analysts resisted the compromise, too. For another, the material has revealed that the classified version of the assessment alerted readers to the existence of the annex. It did so in a fourth bullet point under the judgment that Mr. Putin aspired to help Mr. Trump’s chances of winning. “For additional reporting on Russian plans and intentions, please see Annex A: Additional Reporting from an F.B.I. Source on Russian Influence Efforts,” the bullet point said.
So the initial sourcing is poor, and the recent statements disagree with it.
I repeat that the suggestion is to remove. I will regard it as an improper act if anyone changes the statement now without consensus, or makes long off-topic comments.
Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources are perfectly fine and show that Brennan is not the only one who understands the discussions among all the parties involved. After all, they are the only ones who are reliable sources about what happened. These recent press releases are conspiracy theories and not confirmed. Therefore, at present they are being treated as BLP violations, so sourcing is important. See United States Department of Justice investigation into Crossfire Hurricane.
While they obviously knew about the dossier, it was not yet vetted, so was not included. It got mentioned in an annex. The assessment was based on their own sources, not the dossier's sources. That their own sources confirmed some of the major allegations the dossier had made six months earlier just lends to its credibility. The dossier was described as "prescient" for those allegations.
These accusations still don't debunk the conclusions of at least five major investigations, including by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committees, two special counsels, the ODNI, and the Justice Department’s inspector general: the interference happened with the goals of harming Clinton's chances, putting Trump in power, creating discord in American society, and distrust in the electoral process. Trump and his campaign aided and abetted that in myriad ways because he knew he would benefit from it. Russians occasionally remind him that they put him in power, and that he is indebted to them for his win.[1][2][3] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"creating discord in American society" To repeat a phrase from an old joke: even the best wizard can not change bread into bread. The discord has existed in the form of the American culture wars since at least the 1990s. The Russians may have taken advantage of it, but they did not create it. Dimadick (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Wheeler's analytical skills and deep knowledge of national security matters come to light again. She exposes Tulsi Gabbard's "whistleblower" and totally tears him a new one:

"Based off a misreading, a rumor, and an apparent chip on his shoulder, in 2019 he came to believe that both Nguyen and Pierson had been hiding that the Steele dossier had a role in the ICA that it provably did not have, and based on that, he tried to submit a whistleblower complaint, with little success, until Tulsi came along." (Source)

It's well worth the read if you want to understand this stuff and the conspiracy theory Gabbard is trying to create. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 21 August 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).