Is Steele's dossier what we're talking about? What I'm finding squares with my understanding that almost all of it's 1) pretty solidly corroborated, or 2) isn't

Is Steele's dossier what we're talking about? What I'm finding squares with my understanding that almost all of it's 1) pretty solidly corroborated, or 2) isn't confirmed but is plausible as supported by surrounding events, often with a lot of smoke-but-no-as-yet-discovered-fire sorts of public info surrounding it. Where's the info so thoroughly discrediting its claims that it makes sense to call the whole thing "fake"? Again, what I'm seeing (normal-ass sites and Wikipedia, not like The Nation or something, if that's a concern) strongly supports pretty much the polar opposite of that, and even a fairly strong refutation of much of that would still leave so much that labelling the whole thing "fake" would be unfair. What's up?