The Steele Dossier is a red herring which the right uses to obfuscate a greater truth. I will quote David Frum, who has elegantly and poignantly explained it far better than I ever could. For those of you who do not know David, he is an author of a number of books, lecturer, and the conservative journalist at *Atlantic magazine. This quote was from an article published in the Atlantic, but since that is behind a paywall, I will use YouTube interview with Frum by Mika Brzezinski. The Steele dossier undertook to answer the question "What the heck is going on with Trump and Russia?" ...It was to silence that question that the outgoing Trump administration appointed a special counsel of its own to investigate its investigators. John Durham has now issued three indictments, all for lying to the FBI about various aspects of the Steele dossier. None of these indictments vindicates Trump's claims in any way. It remains fact that Russian hackers and spies helped his campaign. It remains fact that the Trump campaign welcomed the help...It remains fact that Trump and those around him lied, and lied, and lied again about their connections to Russia. Anti-anti-Trump journalists want to use the Steele controversy to score points off politicians and meda institutions that they dislike...But if you choose, as a journalist or a consumer of journalism, to focus on smaller issues, you need to retain your perspective about what is bigger and what is smaller. So, by all means, follow the trail on Steele...Be alert to how the twists of the trail block your view of the surrounding landscape. Otherwise, you may discover too late that you have also been misdirected and misled, and that in setting out to explore a small truth, you have become a participant in the selling of a greater lie. For those who subscribe ( perhaps the Atlantic allows a couple of free views?) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/ More on the subject https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/russiagate-wasnt-a-hoax/615373/ *And, as a side note to all of you 'Kill-The-Messenger' types on the right, who will inevitably challenge The Atlantic as being a reliable source, well, despite your opinion, Atlantic is a reputable magazine. Oh, you think I'm biased? Well, I've quoted a number of reputable conservative publications in the past, such as the Wall Street Journal, and the National Review ( which has declined a bit since William F Buckley's passing), the Christian Science Monitor, to name a few. On mediabiasfactcheck.org, the Atlantic gets a slightly left of center rating, (because it includes right of center journalists such as Frum ), which would be compared to the WSJ which also gets a respectable rating, though right of center rating by MBFC. But the important measure is the factual rating, and WJS gets a 'mostly factual' and Atlantic gets a 'high' rating on the factual scale. These are, therefore reliable sources. As for the right or left meter on MBFC, as long as it's not extreme, it's pointed out that all the bias meter means is that the journal selects articles favored by the right or left, and the closer to the center, the better, in my view. Does it mean an article is the absolute truth? No, it doesn't, but it is, as a reputable source, it is therefore a quotable source, whether you agree with the source or not. So, if KTM is your argument, you will be ignored. The point is, when it comes to reliable sources, you can refute the article's premise, data, etc., but not the media.