So, your reasoning is that you can't trust the information given in that interview about events that occurred BEFORE Trump was president, because of events that have happened AFTER Trump became president?

That's some really circular logic, there.

No. I'm pretty sure there has been some newer damning evidence about the Steel dossier, since Aug 2017.
I probably posted it, or someone else did.

The three huge things I take from what I've read so far of this transcript are these (assuming that what is in the transcript is true):

1. This completely blows away the notion that the Fusion/Steele dossier work was a hit piece commissioned by Democrats to tie Trump to Russia. Fusion was investigating Trump involvement with Russian interests (by commission from Republican interests, mind you) nine months before any Democrats started funding the work. The Steele Dossier is a natural progression of that initial investigative work.
2. Trump flat out lied under oath when he said that he wouldn't recognize Felix Sater if he saw him on the street. He knew Sater well, and had dealings with him long after he found out Sater's ties to the Russian mob.
3. Steele's FBI source in Rome had independently confirmed some of the information that Steele told him (the FBI source, not Simpson), and that one of the sources for that information was a person inside the Trump organization. So this wasn't something that Fusion/Steele spoonfed the FBI in an attempt to achieve a specific result.

Edited to clarify third point.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Jan 9 2018 07:42pm

if there was some big timeline revelation that blows out the DNC commissioning, I'd see it posted in 500 different articles spammed on /r/politics
From what overview I've seen of the dossier testimony, it just confirmed what we've already known, and the biggest headlines have been repeats of that or misinterpretations of that.
For example, your point about "FBI source whistleblower inside the Trump campaign" is being contested as simply being a misinterpretation of vague language:
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/950822390824689667
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/950803383073558529
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/950833823692083200


And I have seen the liberals circlejerking over that misinterpretation, so I'd be very surprised if somehow every but surfpunk managed to miss a timeline bombshell when they'll splooge over bad word choices

anyways
The testimony covers that same timeline we already knew about- anti-Trumpers fund Fusion GPS during the primary, Trump wins and republicans drop Fusion, Hillary's campaign/DNC/Obama pick it up, then Steele gets brought in and makes his dossier.

hang on til the bitter end
definitely no smoke here
never has been

I already edited that line to correct the language from "campaign" to "organization".

I'm about halfway through, but it really is interesting to see Glenn Simpson(Fusion GPS co-founder) discuss in detail the whole process. It starts with Fusion doing a comprehensive look at Donald Trump and his business ventures around the world(Fusion focuses mostly on paper trail themselves, not HUMINT), and then eventually Steele gets hired to look into the Russia ties(being former head of MI6 Russia desk, obv. has sources). Apparently Steele made contact with the FBI after the first memo he wrote.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 9 2018 08:02pm

More specifically, Steele gets hired to dig deeper into Russian ties using his expertise in HUMINT, beyond what Fusion was able to do themselves through document records and the like. Fusion had already been digging into Trump dealings with Russia, but from a paper trail perspective. Steele wasn't the catalyst for the initiation of the investigation into Trump's dealings with Russia, it was a natural progression thereof.

Then Steele is going to prove the earth is flat.