Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What was the role of the Obama administration in the Steele dossier investigation?
1. Summary of the results
The analyses reveal sharply conflicting narratives about the Obama administration's role in the Steele dossier investigation.
Claims of Obama administration misconduct include allegations that the administration "manufactured and politicized intelligence to undermine President Trump's 2016 victory" [1] and "directed the creation of a false Intelligence Community Assessment" that was used to launch what sources describe as "a years-long coup against President Trump" [2]. These sources assert that the Steele dossier was incorporated into intelligence assessments despite being "discredited and unverified" [2].
FBI involvement with Christopher Steele is documented across multiple sources, with evidence that "the FBI had planned to pay Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele dossier, to continue investigating Trump during the presidential campaign" [3]. This occurred despite the FBI's knowledge that Steele was simultaneously being paid by Democrat political operatives to conduct opposition research on Trump [3].
Counter-narratives strongly dispute these allegations, with sources citing "a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report that found Russia did interfere in the 2016 election" [4]. Critics argue that recent allegations "conflate different assessments and misrepresent the intelligence community's conclusions" [4] and that claims of a "treasonous conspiracy" distort the facts [5].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial context about the political motivations behind current investigations. Sources indicate that declassified documents were released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, with experts suggesting these "claims are unlikely to get far due to lack of new evidence" [6]. Notably, "declassified documents released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard do not appear to implicate Obama in any apparent way" [6].
Key missing perspectives include:
- The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's findings that validated Russian interference in the 2016 election [4]
- Expert analysis suggesting the allegations misleadingly conflate different types of intelligence assessments - specifically "assessments of Russian attempts to alter voting infrastructure with those about Russian efforts to influence the election outcome" [5]
- The fact that current allegations rely on what experts describe as "a nonexistent contradiction in the 2017 intelligence assessment" [5]
Financial and political beneficiaries of promoting either narrative include:
- Trump administration officials and allies who benefit from delegitimizing the Russia investigation
- Democratic operatives who originally funded the Steele dossier through the Clinton campaign
- Intelligence community officials whose reputations and careers depend on the credibility of their assessments
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the original question appears neutral, the analyses reveal significant bias in the source materials themselves.
Pro-Trump sources use inflammatory language like "coup," "manufactured," and "treasonous conspiracy" without providing direct evidence of Obama's personal involvement [1] [2]. These sources appear to have political motivations, as they originate from "the Trump administration and its allies" [7].
Critical sources identify specific methodological flaws in the allegations, noting that they "misleadingly conflate assessments" and "distort the facts" [5]. The characterization of intelligence activities as "manufacturing" intelligence appears to be politically charged language rather than objective analysis.
The timing and source of document releases also suggests potential bias, as the declassification occurred under DNI Tulsi Gabbard, a Trump appointee, raising questions about the selective release of information for political purposes rather than genuine transparency efforts.