![\"\"](\"https:\/\/xstorynews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/471462321_604661775476898_568951884894285869_n-2-300x250.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWhile the release of two key \u2014 and contradictory \u2014 documents about Russia\u2019s role in 2016 election interference grabbed the headlines from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard\u2019s document drop last week, buried in the report is an eerie email exchange about the so-called \u201cSteele dossier\u201d and how it got into intelligence assessments.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Gabbard released a plethora of documents on Friday about how the intelligence community assessed Russian intervention in the presidential contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during Barack Obama\u2019s last days in office.<\/p>\n
An initial Presidential Daily Brief stated that there was minimal evidence of substantial intervention and that hacks \u201chad no impact on recent U.S. election results.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Gabbard stated that on December 8, 2016, PDB was removed and never given. Instead, less than a month later, a fresh document was produced that demonstrated significantly greater confidence in Russia\u2019s interference in the Trump campaign. Gabbard revealed that Obama\u2019s DNI, James Clapper, started working on it the day after the December 8 PDB was removed.<\/p>\n
At the back of Gabbard\u2019s 114-page document release was an odd email conversation between various intelligence officials about the importance of the Steele dossier in the assessment and whether it was properly added as an appendix.<\/p>\n
The conversation arises from Kimberly Hermann\u2019s (the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation\u2019s) 2019 Freedom of Information Act request, which sought references to the dossier on specific government platforms.<\/p>\n
The dossier, named after former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, was originally created as opposition research for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It subsequently made its way into demands for warrants against Trump campaign personnel and assessments of Russian influence in the 2016 campaign, even though the majority of its accusations could not be substantiated and were demonstrably untrue.<\/p>\n
A September 18, 2019, email from a redacted person with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence voiced concerns about the Steele dossier\u2019s involvement in the ODNI\u2019s operations.<\/p>\n
The first portion of the email was primarily about technical issues\u2014the quantity of results that fit the query and how, owing to their location, going through all his emails would be \u201cimpractical.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, it gets more problematic from there: \u201cSecond, regarding the email below \u2014 I am choosing my words carefully, for your awareness, because the premise of the message is concerning,\u201d the official wrote.<\/p>\n