Fact Check: "The Steele dossier has been largely discredited."
What We Know
The Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in 2016, contains a series of allegations regarding connections between Donald Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence. It was commissioned by the law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) (Taking Bearings). The dossier was published by BuzzFeed News just before Trump's inauguration, presenting what it described as "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations" (Taking Bearings).
In recent years, various investigations and reviews have scrutinized the dossier's credibility. A declassified review indicated that former CIA Director John Brennan pushed for its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Russian interference in the 2016 election, despite concerns from analysts about its reliability (Fox News). Critics argue that this decision undermined the credibility of the assessment, which was supposed to adhere to intelligence standards (Fox News).
Analysis
The claim that the Steele dossier has been "largely discredited" is supported by several factors. Investigations, including the Mueller Report, found that while some allegations in the dossier were corroborated, many were not substantiated, leading to a general perception of discrediting (Taking Bearings). The dossier's reliance on unverified sources and its use in significant political and legal contexts, such as FISA warrants, have raised ethical concerns about its role in shaping narratives around Trump and Russia (Taking Bearings).
However, it's important to note that the dossier was never intended to be a finished intelligence report; it was a collection of raw intelligence that required further verification (Taking Bearings). This distinction is crucial as it suggests that while many claims may have been discredited, the dossier itself served as a starting point for investigations rather than a definitive account of truth.
The reliability of sources discussing the dossier varies. For instance, the review from the CIA, which criticized the inclusion of the dossier in the ICA, comes from a government source that may have its own biases (Fox News). Conversely, the critique from Taking Bearings reflects a personal opinion that emphasizes media ethics and the potential for partisan manipulation, which could also introduce bias (Taking Bearings).
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that "the Steele dossier has been largely discredited" is Partially True. While many allegations within the dossier have not been substantiated and its inclusion in official assessments has been criticized, it is also essential to recognize that the dossier was a collection of raw intelligence rather than a definitive report. Its role in subsequent investigations and the political landscape indicates that while it has been discredited in parts, it also served as a catalyst for further inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
