CNN thought they had published a bombshell.

They reported that President-elect Trump had been briefed on rumors that Russian agents had obtained compromising information on him.
But within hours, their story began to crumble.
CNN’s so-called bombshell report was in regards to a memo prepared by a former British Intelligence Officer.
The former Intelligence Officer had been hired by Trump’s opponents durging the Republican primary.
The work continued even after Trump clinched the nomination, but with the support of Democrats also.
However, the information in the dossier is nothing but lurid gossip.
It contains allegations that Trump officials met with Russian government agents and exchanged information during his campaign.
But there is one big problem.
All the allegations are unproven.
So far, not a shred of proof exists substantiating the fact that Russian Intelligence possesses any compromising information on Trump.
While the report states Trump, Obama, and the Gang of 8 – the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – were briefed on the documents, it does not mean the Intelligence community also believes them to be true.
In fact, CNN’s own reporting states they could not verify the allegations included in the memo:
“CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high-ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.”
While CNN only reported on the memos, it was the anti-Trump website BuzzFeed who originally published the memos.
However, even BuzzFeed’s editor, Ben Smith, acknowledged the memos were riddled with errors and showed “serious reasons” to think they were false, but published them anyways – despite no media outlet possessing any evidence to substantiate them.