PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteShort answer: Donald Trump’s alleged “pee tape” has never been publicly authenticated. The story began as an unverified allegation in former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s raw reports, was summarized in a January 2017 intelligence briefing, and became widely known after BuzzFeed published the dossier. Subsequent investigations documented serious weaknesses in the reporting’s sourcing and verification, but they did not prove that the alleged recording never existed.
The most accurate way to understand the controversy is not as established sexual misconduct or proof of Russian blackmail. It is a case study in how unverified intelligence can become a durable political factoid.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
![The Lunatic Farmer [DVD + Blu-ray Combo] 2025](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41HhIHRjjjL._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Lunatic Farmer [DVD + Blu-ray Combo] 2025 | $14.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Verbatim BD-R Blank Blu-ray Discs 25GB 16X Single Layer Recordable - 10 PK | $16.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy) | $13.87 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
![The Go-Go's (Documentary) [Blu-ray/DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51jK8A3Sp6L._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Go-Go's (Documentary) [Blu-ray/DVD] | $9.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
![Crossfire Hurricane[Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/616y4ZtTbyL._SL160_.jpg)
|
Crossfire Hurricane[Blu-ray] | $11.07 | Buy on Amazon |
What the “pee tape” allegation claimed
The allegation concerned a purported incident during Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant. According to Steele’s reporting, Russian intelligence supposedly possessed compromising material involving Trump and prostitutes at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton hotel.
The most famous detail was the claim that women allegedly urinated on a hotel bed that had previously been used by Barack and Michelle Obama. “Pee tape” and “pee-pee tape” are media shorthand. The original reports used the language of intelligence reporting and described alleged compromising material rather than using those nicknames.
#1 Best Overall
- 1 Standard Blu-ray Disc + 1 standard DVD Disc
- Languages & Subtitles: English
- 76 Minutes
That distinction matters. The dossier did not present a publicly viewable recording, a named eyewitness, or a court-tested account. It presented a report about what sources allegedly knew or had heard. The public controversy began with the existence of that report—not with the discovery of a verified video.
Where the story came from
Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, prepared a series of reports for Fusion GPS, a private research firm. The project began under opposition-research arrangements that originated with a conservative client and later continued with funding connected to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The funding history is relevant to the dossier’s provenance and political context, but it does not by itself establish whether any individual allegation was true or false. The more important evidentiary issue is what kind of document the dossier was: a collection of raw reports based on unidentified sources and sub-sources, not a court finding, a completed intelligence assessment, or a recording authenticated by investigators.
In January 2017, the existence of classified briefing materials containing a summary of Steele’s reporting became known. BuzzFeed then published the underlying dossier. Publication turned one of the document’s most sensational and least verifiable claims into its most memorable feature, even though the dossier covered a much wider set of allegations about contacts between people around Trump, Russia, and Russian influence efforts.
What investigators later learned about the sourcing
The most significant public evidence about the allegation concerns the reliability of its reporting chain. A Justice Department inspector general’s review found serious problems in the FBI’s handling of Steele material used in applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The review identified significant omissions and errors in applications seeking renewals of that surveillance.
The inspector general also reported that the FBI could not corroborate specific substantive allegations in several Steele reports relied upon in the applications. That does not mean every statement in the dossier was false, and it does not logically prove that a recording could not exist. It does mean that the public description of the alleged tape rested on a weak and indirect evidentiary chain.
Rank #2
- 10 high-grade, non-rewritable BD-R discs, OEM certified, with a one hundred year archival life
- Verbatim Blu-ray discs are treated with Hard Coat to prevent scratches, resist fingerprints and reduce dust build-up
- Single-layer discs with up to 25GB of storage space to back-up your HD video, music and photos with superb resolution and amazing sound quality.
- Up to 6x write speed. Compatible with the latest Blu-ray hardware including Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and LG.
- Verbatim has been a leader in data storage technology since 1969, and guarantees this product with a limited lifetime warranty and technical support
The primary sub-source’s account
A key problem emerged when the FBI interviewed the primary sub-source behind much of the reporting. The source characterized substantial portions of the material as word of mouth, hearsay, conversations over drinks, and, in some instances, comments made in jest. The source also said that sub-sources might have exaggerated their access.
According to later Justice Department accounts, the primary sub-source had heard that there were stories about Trump’s alleged sexual activities. The source did not say that a hotel employee had personally confirmed the alleged activities. Later efforts to corroborate the reporting produced no corroboration, according to the official accounts summarized in the public record.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →This is the difference between a direct witness and a multi-step intelligence rumor:
- Direct evidence: An authenticated recording, a witness with first-hand knowledge, or physical evidence independently examined by investigators.
- Indirect reporting: A source reports what another person allegedly said, possibly based on what a third person heard.
- The pee-tape claim: Publicly available evidence places it in the second category, not the first.
Steele disputed the primary sub-source’s later characterization. He suggested that the source minimized the information after being exposed. That disagreement is part of the controversy, but Steele’s view is still an assessment of the reporting—not independent authentication of a video.
What the Mueller report says
The report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller records that then-FBI Director James Comey briefed President-elect Trump about an unverified allegation that Russia possessed compromising tapes involving conduct during Trump’s 2013 Moscow trip. The report’s inclusion of the allegation documents that it was discussed at a high level; it does not authenticate the alleged recording.
The Mueller report also records a separate episode involving Michael Cohen. On October 30, 2016, Giorgi Rtskhiladze sent Cohen a text saying that the “flow of tapes” from Russia had been stopped. Rtskhiladze later explained that the tapes referred to rumors of compromising material.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesRank #3
- The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy)
That exchange is sometimes presented as confirmation that a tape existed. It is not. At most, it documents that people in Trump’s orbit were discussing rumors about compromising material. The report does not establish that the alleged hotel incident occurred, that a recording was made, or that Rtskhiladze had personally seen one.
Mueller’s broader investigation did establish extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. It also reported insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Neither finding should be confused with a conclusion about whether a personal video existed. Russian election interference can be independently established without proving this particular allegation, and the absence of a conspiracy charge does not authenticate or disprove the alleged tape.
What Steele and Trump have said
In a 2021 interview with ABC News, Steele said he believed the alleged tape “probably” existed, while stopping short of certainty. ABC also reported the primary sub-source’s account that the information was hearsay and might have been made in jest.
Steele’s statement is important for understanding his own level of confidence, but “probably” is not the same as verified. It describes an intelligence assessment based on a source chain, not proof that investigators or the public could independently examine.
Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation and denied that the tape exists. His denials are relevant to the public history of the dispute, but they do not independently prove the allegation false. The same standard applies in the other direction: Steele’s belief does not prove it true.
Did the 2024 UK court case prove anything about the tape?
No. In 2024, the High Court of England and Wales dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Orbis Business Intelligence, the company associated with Steele. The case involved data-protection and related legal issues surrounding claims in the dossier.
Rank #4
- Multiplatinum LA rock band The Go-Go's candid, universally acclaimed documentary directed by Allison Ellwood
The judgment should not be described as a ruling that the alleged recording exists. Nor should dismissal of the lawsuit be treated as a judicial finding that every dossier allegation was false. The legal result and the factual question are separate: the court case did not publicly authenticate a video.
What the Senate Intelligence Committee found
The Senate Intelligence Committee separately concluded that Steele’s material did not inform the key judgments of the public 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The committee described the material as unverified and noted that it had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →That conclusion is important because it separates two issues that are often blended together:
- The dossier had serious reliability problems. Its sourcing was indirect, some claims could not be corroborated, and the FBI’s handling of the material contained documented errors and omissions.
- Russia conducted an influence operation. The Senate’s findings about Russian interference did not depend on treating the pee-tape allegation as proven.
Weaknesses in one collection of opposition research do not erase independently supported findings about Russian interference. Conversely, evidence of Russian interference does not make every allegation in the dossier true.
A timeline of the controversy
| Date | What happened | What it does—and does not—show |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Trump travels to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant. The alleged hotel incident is said to have occurred during this trip. | Establishes the time and place claimed by the allegation, not that the incident happened. |
| 2016 | Steele prepares reports for Fusion GPS. Rumors about compromising tapes circulate among people connected to Trump, including the October 30 Cohen–Rtskhiladze text exchange recorded in the Mueller report. | Documents the circulation of rumors, not the existence of a recording. |
| January 2017 | The allegation becomes public through reporting about intelligence briefings and BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier. | Explains how the allegation entered public debate. |
| 2017–2019 | The FBI and Justice Department investigate the broader Russia matter. Mueller’s report records the allegation but does not authenticate it. | Shows that the allegation was part of the investigative context, not that it was confirmed. |
| December 2019 | The Justice Department inspector general reports serious problems with the FBI’s use and verification of Steele material in FISA applications. | Undermines confidence in the sourcing and handling of the reporting; does not prove the tape never existed. |
| October 2021 | Steele says he thinks the tape probably exists. ABC News reports the primary sub-source’s account that the information was hearsay and possibly joking. | Shows the conflict between Steele’s assessment and the source’s later description. |
| February 2024 | The UK High Court dismisses Trump’s lawsuit against Orbis Business Intelligence. | Resolves the legal case, not the factual question of whether a recording exists. |
| August 12, 2026 | The latest checkpoint stated in the reviewed research identifies no publicly authenticated tape or independent public verification. | Defines the public evidentiary position: no authentication has been identified. |
How to evaluate new claims about the alleged tape
Because the allegation is highly memorable, new references to it often sound more conclusive than the evidence allows. A useful test is to ask five questions:
- Is the source describing a document or an actual recording? A reference to the dossier, a briefing, or a text message confirms that a claim circulated. It does not confirm the underlying event.
- Was the person speaking from first-hand knowledge? The primary sub-source’s account suggests that important parts of the reporting were hearsay rather than direct observation.
- Was there independent corroboration? Public investigations identified no authenticated recording or independent public verification in the material reviewed here.
- Is a legal ruling being misrepresented? The 2024 UK judgment was about the lawsuit against Orbis, not a factual determination that the tape exists.
- Is the broader Russia investigation being used as a shortcut? Evidence of Russian election interference cannot serve as automatic proof of an unrelated personal allegation.
The right conclusion is therefore narrower than both the most sensational claim and the most confident debunking: the allegation was reported, repeated, investigated, and never publicly authenticated.
Best Value
- Blu-ray
- Multiple Formats, Blu-ray, NTSC
- English (Published), English (Original Language), English (Unknown)
- 1
- 142
Further reading on the dossier and investigation
For readers who want a longer account of how the dossier was commissioned and used, Crime in Progress: The Secret History of the Trump-Russia Investigation provides broader investigative context. It should be read as a secondary account of the investigation, not as independent verification of the alleged tape.
Readers seeking Christopher Steele’s own perspective can compare it with Unredacted: Russia, Trump, and the Fight for Democracy. Because it is a first-person account by a central participant, it offers perspective on Steele’s reasoning but is not independent evidence. For a wider account of the allegations and the Trump–Russia investigation, Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win is another contextual reading choice. None of these books substitutes for an authenticated recording or changes the public evidentiary status of the claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Donald Trump’s alleged pee tape exist?
No publicly authenticated recording has been identified in the sources reviewed for this explanation. The allegation remains unverified. That is not the same as proving that no recording could ever have existed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Who first reported the pee-tape allegation?
The allegation appeared in raw intelligence reports prepared by Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS. It became widely known in January 2017 after reporting about an intelligence briefing and BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier.
Did the Mueller report confirm the pee tape?
No. Mueller’s report records that James Comey briefed Trump about an unverified allegation and describes a 2016 text referring to rumors of tapes. It does not authenticate a recording or conclude that the alleged hotel incident occurred.
Did the 2024 UK court case prove the allegation was true or false?
No. The High Court case concerned Trump’s lawsuit against Orbis Business Intelligence and involved legal and data-protection issues. It was not a factual ruling on whether the alleged tape exists.
Was the Steele dossier completely debunked?
That is too broad. Official reviews documented serious sourcing and verification problems, including failures to corroborate specific allegations used in FISA applications. Those findings do not prove every claim in the dossier false, nor do they establish that the alleged tape could not exist.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: The “pee tape” is an unverified allegation from Steele’s raw intelligence reporting, not a publicly authenticated fact. Investigators documented a weak and indirect sourcing chain, while Steele continued to say he believed the recording probably existed and Trump continued to deny it. The evidence supports saying that the rumor was circulated and investigated—but not that the tape was proven real, or definitively proven never to have existed.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
