During the transition period following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, top intelligence officials from the Obama administration briefed then-President-elect Donald Trump on a controversial dossier. This document, known as the “Steele dossier,” was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and contained unverified allegations of coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. Despite its lack of verification, the dossier was used to initiate the Trump-Russia investigation, raising questions about its credibility and the motivations behind its use.

The Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie. Intelligence officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, were aware of its unverified nature but proceeded to use it in their briefings. In January 2017, Comey briefed Trump on the dossier at Trump Tower in New York City, with Brennan present. Documents suggest that during Clinton’s campaign, there was an effort to link Trump to Russia, a plan allegedly approved by Clinton herself.

The dossier’s inclusion in intelligence assessments has been criticized for lacking empirical evidence. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified notes indicating that Brennan briefed President Obama on a plan by Clinton’s campaign to create a scandal involving Trump and Russian interference. This information was forwarded to Comey under the subject line “Crossfire Hurricane,” which became the code name for the FBI’s investigation into potential collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Both Brennan and Comey are now under criminal investigation for their roles in the Trump-Russia probe. The investigations focus on potential wrongdoing, including making false statements to Congress. Ratcliffe referred evidence of alleged misconduct by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution. The scope of these investigations remains unclear, but they highlight concerns about politicization within intelligence agencies during this period.

The Steele dossier’s credibility has been further questioned by reviews that found procedural anomalies in its inclusion in intelligence assessments. Despite objections from CIA officials, the dossier was included in a footnote of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), largely at the insistence of senior FBI leadership. This decision has been criticized for undermining the credibility of key judgments within the ICA.

The ongoing investigations into Brennan and Comey underscore broader concerns about the integrity of intelligence processes and potential political motivations behind high-profile probes. As these investigations unfold, they continue to shape discussions about accountability and transparency within U.S. intelligence agencies.