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

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.