The attack on Douma has returned to the spotlight following the release by WikiLeaks of internal documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the organization charged by the United Nations with investigating the attack and recently mandated to identify the responsible parties. In March, the OPCW released a report concluding that the 2018 attack probably used chlorine gas released from cylinders recovered at the site, seemingly dropped from an aircraft. This conclusion supports the theory that the attack was orchestrated by Russian-backed Syrian government forces, who controlled the airspace over Douma.

Carlson framed the documents published by WikiLeaks, which a whistleblower released to dispute the levels of chlorine found and the alleged use of aircraft, as accusing “the organization of altering investigators’ original findings to make evidence of an attack look more conclusive than it actually was.” He said another whistleblower claimed that “on-the-ground evidence points against an attack happening at all.”

The OPCW stands by the conclusion of its report, and the leak comes amid some scuffling over an upcoming vote to expand OPCW’s responsibility in examining attacks and its budget. Russia has opposed granting the OPCW authority to determine who was responsible for the Douma attack and made clear it will attempt to block efforts to do so.

Despite the seemingly scandalous accusation in the leak, Carlson is misrepresenting the nature of the WikiLeaks documents and their significance. Investigative journalists at Bellingcat found that the leaked letter was in fact referring to an “interim report” issued in July of 2018, before the OPCW released its final conclusions. A side-by-side comparison shows that the concerns addressed in the letter “are present, or else are in modified form, in the final report.” Bellingcat concludes: “Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report.”

But Carlson isn’t just misrepresenting and maligning the work done by investigators; he’s actively spreading conspiracy theories that the attack didn’t take place at all. Carlson invited Jonathan Steele, former foreign correspondent at The Guardian, to argue that there was no evidence of chlorine gas present where the attack took place. Steele, who has been vocal in his opinion that “if ending Syria’s war means accepting Assad and Russia have won, so be it,” argued: