Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) I'm going to itemize every factual inaccuracy in this NYT article—while telling you in advance that none of them will be fixed. I wrote a NYT bestseller on the subject these men have written a story on, so I know *exactly* what needs correcting. nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/…

ERROR #1: The NYT calls Steele's work "Democratic-funded opposition research." In fact it was first funded by anti-Trump Republicans. After Trump won the 2016 primary, it *later* came to be funded by Democrats. So it was "anti-Trump research" funded by *both* parties' faithful.

ERROR #2: The NYT writes that Steele's work "turned out to be" opposition research funded by Democrats—implying Steele hid the nature of the work from media and the FBI. Not only did he *not* do this, but he *didn't even know who had contracted him*. Fusion GPS never told him.

ERROR #3: The NYT darkly calls Steele's work "a compendium of rumors and unproven assertions." In fact, it's what's called "raw intel," and was *always* presented that way to *everyone*. Raw intel often comprises rumors and uncorroborated assertions. There was no subterfuge here.

ERROR #4: The NYT says the dossier's purpose was to "suggest that Mr. Trump and his 2016 campaign were compromised by and conspiring with Russian intelligence officials in Moscow’s covert operation to help him defeat Hillary Clinton." In fact, the work's focus was *much* broader.

ERROR #4 (cont.): Much of what the dossier got right—before it'd been reported by anyone—had to do with Russia's broader election-interference efforts. The NYT tries to erase the accuracy of the dossier by erasing *all* of these components from it and making it only about Trump.

ERROR #5: The NYT says all the intelligence in the Steele dossier about Donald Trump and his team involved them "conspiring" with "Moscow's covert [election-interference] campaign"—meaning, conspiring in hacking and propaganda.

But hardly any of the dossier is about that at all.

ERROR #5 (cont.): Much of Steele's intelligence is about Trump's views toward Russia and Russia policy being compromised by *financial interests* dangled before him by the Kremlin—not hacking or propaganda ops. The NYT elides this because it all turned out to be *100% accurate*.

ERROR #5 (cont.): Mueller's report never addressed Trump's actual/attempted financial dealings in Russia—all of which he lied to U.S. voters about and all of which are now 100% confirmed.

The report—like the NYT but *not* the dossier—focused *only* on hacking and propaganda ops.

ERROR #6: The NYT writes that the Steele dossier contained "a salacious claim about a purported sex tape."

No, it didn't.

The tape in question *wasn't* said to include any sex, let alone Donald Trump involved in any sex. And it wouldn't be right to call it "salacious," either.

ERROR #6 (cont.): Per the dossier, Trump just thought it would be funny to have some Russian women pee on a bed Obama had slept in. That's it. No sex was involved, and if you find a juvenile prank that didn't even involve Trump himself "salacious," sorry, you're hyperventilating.

ERROR #6 (cont.): The idea of a "sex tape" actually comes from a brief, vague phrase in the intelligence suggesting that on *other* trips to Moscow Trump may have been involved in recorded sex acts. And guess what? The CIA later told the BBC that was true. bbc.com/news/world-us-…

ERROR #7: I don't know if this is an error or unprofessional omission, but Steele is called simply a "former British intelligence agent" rather than what he was—the MI6 *Russia desk chief* for years, so trusted by the MI6 for his skill and Moscow sources he *trained other spies*.

ERROR #8: The NYT writes that "most of the important claims in the dossier have not been proven, and some have been refuted."

This is *spectacularly* false.

The key claims in the intel were about *Russia's election-interference operations*—all of which the USIC later confirmed.

ERROR #8 (cont.): But even if we pull back from the central claims of the intelligence, *far more* of the intelligence has been *confirmed* than remains uncorroborated—and virtually *nothing* (with one key exception) has been refuted. See this Empty Lighthouse infographic, below:

ERROR #8 (cont.): But this is just the start of the NYT's errors on this score, as a) Steele *told* the FBI that—like even the best raw intel—*his* raw intel was likely 70% correct and 30% not, and b) it's *often* the case—even with *accurate* intel—that it can't be corroborated.

ERROR #8 (cont.): While the Mueller Report couldn't find evidence that Michael Cohen was in Prague, that's just *one* claim among *scores* in the intelligence—which Steele himself told the FBI was likely 30% inaccurate, meaning he told them to expect *many* inaccurate assertions.

ERROR #8 (cont.): An accurate summation of the status of Steele's intel: a third of its key claims have been confirmed; another third—Cohen excepted—have been the subject or significant corroborating evidence; some other claims have been confirmed while some more remain unproven.

ERROR #8 (cont.): What the NYT doesn't tell readers is how *standard* all this is. In a typical intel dossier not only will many things go unconfirmed, uncorroborated, or unproven, but there'll be many items that *can't*—by their very nature—be confirmed, corroborated, or proven.

ERROR #9: Another omission/misleading summation that must constitute an "error": how the NYT frames Danchenko's past actions, which are portrayed as potentially sinister when, if you read carefully, you understand that they were anything but. I'll quote the NYT report here first:

ERROR #9 (cont.): The NYT writes, "FBI agents interviewed Danchenko in 2017 when they were seeking to run down the claims in the dossier. The interview suggested that aspects of the dossier were misleading—Steele left unclear that much of the material was thirdhand information...

ERROR #9 (cont.): "...and some of what Danchenko...had relayed was more speculative than the dossier implied."

So (1) Danchenko voluntarily sat with the FBI to given them info; (2) the information he gave them was candid; (3) there's no allegation Danchenko did anything wrong.

ERROR #9 (cont.): All the NYT is saying here is that Steele's write-ups—which *were intended for Fusion GPS at the time, not the FBI or public consumption via the media*—were a bit sloppy in parts because he was *trying to protect his sources from being murdered by the Kremlin*.

ERROR #9 (cont.): I can't underscore this enough: Steele's work product was private, contracted work product that was *not* created with the expectation either the FBI or media would ever see it. And he *did* have to protect *both* his Russian- and US-dwelling sources. So he did.

ERROR #9 (cont.): If we suppose that in spots Steele's caution was sloppiness or even gross negligence, it *still* doesn't make it a political plot, as (a) he didn't know who his employer was, and (b) what he was writing was private work-product not intended for the FBI or media.

ERROR #9 (cont.): The NYT notes, rightly, that Steele was doing opposition research. What evidence has the NYT—or DOJ or FBI or *anyone*—ever offered proving that *this* private opposition research (tricky because it involved international conduct) was sloppier than *any other*?

ERROR #10: This is just mystifying:

"A 2019 DOJ IG investigation sharply criticized the FBI for continuing to cite material from the dossier after the FBI interviewed Mr. Danchenko without alerting judges that some of what he said had cast doubt on the contents of the dossier."

ERROR #10 (cont.): So if we know that all intel dossiers have *some* inaccurate information *and* some uncorroborated or unprovable assertions; and Steele told the FBI *his* was 30% inaccurate; of *course* if the FBI cited the dossier, it was going to include *some* inaccuracies.

ERROR #10 (cont.): So perhaps the FBI should never be able to cite *any* intel in seeking a FISA warrant? Would the USIC be okay with that? DOJ? The FBI? Republicans? No, I don't think so. The standard of proof in a FISA warrant is probable cause, and they're almost never denied.

ERROR #10 (cont.): In this case—the NYT conveniently omits—the warrant didn't just involve "a former Trump campaign adviser" (Carter Page) but a former Trump campaign adviser *repeatedly suspected by the FBI in the past of working with Russian spies* (and they had evidence, too!)

ERROR #10 (cont.): The FBI acted as it would with a FISA warrant involving a foreign asset: using intel in a warrant, knowing probable cause is a low standard, expecting to get a warrant.

That was a mistake, yes—because Page is American—but an FBI mistake not about Trump per se.

ERROR #11: In the event you're inclined to think this NYT error was innocent, check this out:

"The IG report said a decade earlier, when Danchenko worked for Brookings—a prominent DC think-tank—he'd been the subject of a counterintel [probe] into whether he was a Russian agent."

ERROR #11 (cont.): Why does the NYT say this about Danchenko, but *not* Page? The man the FBI sought a warrant *for* had *also* been the subject of a prior CI probe!

(As had Trump's top Russia adviser, Dimitri Simes, BTW. Simes has since fled to Moscow, and now works for Putin.)

ERROR #11 (cont.): So Danchenko is tarred by the FBI as having previously been the subject of a CI probe involving Russia, but Page—who'd face the same type of probe—is merely "a former Trump campaign adviser." (And Trump's *top* campaign adviser on Russia *was* a Russian agent!)

ERROR #11 (cont.): It's only in the 11th paragraph that the NYT finally writes, "In a 2020 NYT interview, Danchenko defended the integrity of his work, saying he had been tasked to gather 'raw intelligence' and was simply passing it on to Steele." Yes—and pretty standard conduct!

ERROR #11 (cont.): It's also in the 11th paragraph that the NYT establishes why the FBI—and Steele—might have trusted Danchenko far more than Page: "Mr. Danchenko made his name as a Russia analyst by exposing indications that Putin's dissertation contained plagiarized material."

ERROR #11 (cont.): Yet *after* the FBI caught Page giving non-public intel on the US energy sector to men he *admitted* he knew were Russian spies—and *after* the FBI told him to end all contact—Page was caught crowing in a private letter that he was "an adviser to the Kremlin"!

ERROR #12: As a journalism prof, I know the *placement* of info can constitute "error." It isn't until the 13th paragraph that the NYT reveals that—like Steele—Danchenko "didn't know who Steele's client was at the time and considered himself a nonpartisan analyst and researcher."

ERROR #12 (cont.): So the NYT top-loads its article with news that Steele's work was "Democratic-funded opposition research"—*that's* in the 1st paragraph—but you have to read 12 paragraphs *more* to eventually learn that the folks doing the work didn't know who was funding them.

CONCLUSION: From the day it was released, the reporting on Steele's dossier has been some of the worst major-media reporting I've ever seen in my life as a working journalist and journalism professor. It's shameful and—nearly five years on—it needs to stop. Right here, right now.

PS: If you want to read the book in the NYT-bestselling Proof Trilogy that covers Steele's dossier, it's below. It was published by Simon & Schuster and holds a 5-star review average over 1,000+ reviews.

Besides naming it a bestseller, the NYT ignored it. amazon.com/gp/product/B07…

(UPDATE) Durham's "investigation" has had the effect it was intended to have when Trump and Barr launched it: Trumpists are now calling it the "criminal Steele dossier" and calling on Fiona Hill to be arrested for testifying against Trump at his first impeachment.

Scary stuff.

(UPDATE2) Maybe we should fight bullshit with truth? Folks should share this interview with former MI6 Russia desk chief Christopher Steele—who's a goddamned hero and should be thought of in that way by every American.