Fact check: How did the FBI use the Steele dossier in their investigation of Trump?

1. Summary of the results

The FBI used the Steele dossier as a key component in obtaining FISA surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide ^[1]. The dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee ^[1].

The FBI's reliance on the dossier proved problematic, as the bureau offered Christopher Steele up to $1 million to prove the allegations in his dossier, but he was unable to do so ^[2]. Despite this inability to verify the claims, the FBI continued to use the document for surveillance purposes.

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty to altering an email related to the surveillance application, highlighting procedural violations in the warrant process ^[1]. The FBI's handling of the dossier became subject to investigation by special counsel John Durham ^[2].

Additionally, the dossier was incorporated into the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), despite being described as a "discredited and unverified document" ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several critical pieces of context that significantly alter the narrative:

• Political funding source: The dossier was not an independent intelligence product but was funded by Trump's political opponents - the Clinton campaign and DNC ^[1]. This financial relationship raises questions about potential bias in the document's creation.
• FBI's awareness of Clinton campaign plans: According to declassified materials, the FBI received intelligence regarding a possible Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald Trump to Russia ^[4]. This suggests the FBI may have been aware of political motivations behind anti-Trump narratives while still using the dossier.
• Broader intelligence manipulation: The investigation extended beyond just surveillance warrants. Evidence suggests the Obama Administration manufactured an Intelligence Community Assessment that falsely claimed Putin aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances ^[3], indicating systemic issues beyond the FBI's use of the dossier.
• Document concealment: Recent discoveries reveal that the FBI found a trove of sensitive documents related to the origins of the Trump-Russia probe buried in multiple 'burn bags' in a secret room inside the bureau ^[5], suggesting potential efforts to hide evidence of the investigation's origins.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually neutral, presents the FBI's use of the Steele dossier as a standard investigative procedure without acknowledging the highly controversial and potentially improper nature of this usage.

The question fails to mention that:

• The dossier was opposition research funded by Trump's political opponents rather than legitimate intelligence
• The FBI could not verify the dossier's claims despite offering substantial payment for proof
• Legal violations occurred in the warrant application process
• The broader context involves potential political weaponization of intelligence agencies

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Democratic Party officials and Clinton campaign operatives benefit from portraying the FBI's actions as legitimate counterintelligence work
• Trump and Republican officials benefit from framing this as evidence of a politically motivated "witch hunt"
• Intelligence community leadership benefits from maintaining that their actions were procedurally justified
• Media organizations that promoted the dossier's claims benefit from avoiding acknowledgment of their role in spreading unverified information

The evidence suggests the FBI's use of the Steele dossier represents a significant departure from standard investigative practices, involving unverified political opposition research in official surveillance applications against American citizens.