Fact check: Was the Steele dossier proven to be fake

1. Summary of the results

The question of whether the Steele dossier was "proven to be fake" reveals a complex situation with mixed evidence and ongoing controversy. Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who worked on the Steele dossier, was acquitted of charges of lying to the FBI, though this acquittal does not directly prove the dossier's authenticity ^[1].

Top Obama-era intelligence officials knew the dossier was filled with unverified 'internet rumor' but still used it to brief then-President-elect Donald Trump ^[2]. The Durham investigation findings suggest that the Clinton campaign may have planned to falsely tie Donald Trump to Russia, with questions raised about the FBI's handling of related intelligence and potential Russian disinformation ^[3].

CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia probe, which raises questions about the dossier's credibility and how it was used ^[2]. Some sources characterize the dossier as being based on 'manufactured' information and part of a larger effort to undermine President Trump ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important nuance about the distinction between "fake" and "unverified." Former CIA analyst Michael Van Landingham stated that the CIA did not want to include the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, but it was added to an annex at a higher level, while expressing confidence in the overall quality of the intelligence community assessment despite the dossier's inclusion ^[5].

The analyses present sharply contrasting viewpoints:

• Intelligence community defenders argue that the core Russian interference findings remain valid regardless of the dossier's problems
• Trump administration supporters and Republican investigators characterize the dossier as part of a deliberate conspiracy to undermine Trump's presidency

Political figures who benefit from different narratives include:

• Democratic leadership and Clinton campaign officials who would benefit from maintaining that Russian interference concerns were legitimate
• Trump and Republican officials who benefit from characterizing the entire Russia investigation as a "hoax" or "coup attempt"
• Intelligence community leaders like Brennan and Comey whose reputations depend on justifying their handling of the dossier

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question "Was the Steele dossier proven to be fake" contains an oversimplification that could promote misinformation. The binary framing of "fake" versus "real" ignores the more complex reality that the dossier contained unverified claims that intelligence officials knew were unreliable, yet continued to use ^[2].

The question fails to distinguish between:

• Individual claims within the dossier being unsubstantiated
• The broader Russian interference investigation's findings
• The motivations and actions of various officials who handled the dossier

Some sources present highly partisan language, describing the situation as a "years-long coup" and "conspiracy to subvert President Trump's victory" ^[4], while others focus on procedural and evidentiary questions about intelligence handling. This polarized framing benefits those seeking to either completely vindicate or completely condemn the Russia investigation, rather than examining the nuanced evidence about what was known when and by whom.