I have yet to read this, although I caught the second half of NPR's "Fresh Air" interview with the author, this morning. (And I definitely intend to listen to the whole thing, and to read this.)

However, from months' worth of reporting from other sources, I gather that Steele and co.'s opposition research was initially contracted by Republican interests competing against Trump in in the primaries.

And I gather, from what I already knew and what I heard further about this in the portion of the Fresh Air interview that I did hear, that Steel's information and resulting concern about Trump, went back several years. Long before Trump became a presidential candidate.

So far, as far as the reporting I've been following, we've yet to encounter anything in the so-called Steele dossier, that's been disproved.

Given all the political opposition to Steele (I name it political, because it does appear to be entirely partisan-based opposition to him, regardless of the legitimate concerns he's raised). Given that, it's a bit remarkable that this dossier has not yet been disproved in any significant aspect. You have to think there are a lot of resources being devoted to doing so.

P.S. I just looked up the URL for that "Fresh Air" show.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591130207/journalist-charts-t...

"we've yet to encounter anything in the so-called Steele dossier, that's been disproved."

I have a tape of politician X performing unspeakable acts with a killer whale. Can you disprove my claim?

Well, I don't disagree with that.

But I also think that Trump and the Republicans who've lined up behind him -- and their... "patrons" -- would pay dearly for any and all evidence and publicity that would tarnish if not destroy Steele.

There's been a lot of rhetoric, but I've yet to see an actual fact that contradicts him. And there's more to the dossier than "killer whales" or, as it were, the so-called "golden shower". (And that golden shower, and how it got included, is actually addressed in the interview I mentioned.)

And as the article's author also points out -- this may be in a New Yorker podcast that I heard part of while cooking dinner -- the dossier represents primary intelligence, not a corroborated, final intelligence report. (Or perhaps in that, she was speaking more of a recent memo he wrote, simply describing -- and being clear about the nature of this -- the word going around Russian intelligence and bureaucracy, that Mitt Romney's selection for Secretary of State was scuttled by Russian opposition. I'll have to recheck.)

Even so, I have not yet heard of a major statement in it that's been dis-proven.

Now, I'm "just a guy who follows the news". But, this has become increasingly significant to me, as the months roll by.