Fact check: OBAMA OFFICIALS USED DOSSIER TO PROBE, BRIEF TRUMP DESPITE KNOWING IT WAS UNVERIFIED 'INTERNET RUMOR'

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provide substantial support for the core claim that Obama officials used the Steele dossier to probe and brief Trump despite knowing it was unverified. Multiple sources confirm that the discredited Steele dossier was used to open the original Trump-Russia probe in 2016 and to brief then-President-elect Donald Trump, despite top Obama-era intelligence officials knowing it was filled with unverified 'internet rumor' ^[1].

Key officials involved include John Brennan and James Comey, who briefed Trump on the dossier despite knowing its unverified nature ^[2]. The analyses reveal that Obama-era intelligence officials, including Clapper, Lynch, and Rice, had no empirical evidence of Trump-Russia collusion but continued to push the narrative ^[2].

The dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee ^[3], and while it was not included in the body of the final Intelligence Community Assessment, it was detailed in a footnote ^[2]. The FBI used the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a Trump aide ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context that emerge from the analyses:

• The dossier's funding source: The statement fails to mention that the Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee ^[3], which provides important context about potential political motivations.
• Criminal investigations: The analyses reveal that Brennan and Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia probe ^{[1] [2]}, which suggests accountability measures were taken.
• FBI's continued use of problematic sources: The FBI paid Igor Danchenko, a key dossier source, as a confidential human source from March 2017 to October 2020, despite knowing about his problematic history, including interactions with Russian intelligence services and attempts to procure and sell US government secrets ^[6].
• Legal outcomes: Danchenko was ultimately acquitted of lying to the FBI ^{[4] [5]}, which provides a different perspective on the reliability of sources involved.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the core factual claims appear supported by the analyses, the statement's framing may contain bias:

• Selective emphasis: The statement focuses exclusively on Obama officials' actions without mentioning the broader context of Russian interference investigations or the legal processes that followed.
• Missing accountability context: The statement doesn't mention that criminal investigations were launched into the officials involved ^{[1] [2]}, which could give readers the impression that no consequences followed.
• Omission of funding sources: By not mentioning the Clinton campaign and DNC funding of the dossier ^[3], the statement misses a key element that would help readers understand the political dynamics at play.

The analyses suggest that powerful political figures and intelligence officials would benefit from either defending or attacking this narrative, depending on their political alignment, as it directly impacts perceptions of the legitimacy of the Trump-Russia investigation and the actions of the Obama administration.