I know the Fox news story on the interview with the WaPo reporter who discussed their coverage of the story left this part out, by accident I'm sure, but if you read the transcript of the interview they're referring to you'll find that what they were 'divided' about was that they only knew the calls had taken place, they didn't know the content of the calls, and they couldn't determine if the calls were benign; just a cordial introduction prior to taking office, or more scandalous, with the specific example being if they had discussed the newly imposed sanctions. Of course we now know they had discussed the sanctions.
Both the NSA and FBI define a "compromised" person as someone who a foreign power has information on that could, for instance, get them fired. We don't have to wonder if the Russian's knowledge that Flynn had lied about the Kislyak meant they had information that could get him fired, since it did indeed get him fired.
The unmasking request occurred a week and a half after the call that triggered the report in question. I would agree it would seem unusual if the request was a year or two after the report, but this isn't an unusual timeframe for such a request to occur.
You're free to offer what in the Steele Dossier has been disproven. It's main claims were that Russia was behind the DNC server hack (multiple US intelligence agencies have come to this conclusion) and that people associated with the Trump campaign were aware of Russia's involvement (a Trump staffer admitted this to a foreign diplomat). It also centered on Page, who the report claimed had travelled to Russia in the beginning of July (he did) and had met with Sechin and Diveykin (he admitted to this under oath).
Mainly, I'm not sure how I'm supposed get worked up about Biden making an unmasking request as a supposed attack on a political opponent when that information came about due to declassifying and leaking to the press the list of unmasking requests, as a fairly obvious attack on a political opponent.
And this is all in the context of what now defines what rises to the level of justifying an investigation into political dirty tricks. Trump illegally withheld funds, funds meant to protect our interests and national security, to leverage a personal political favor, the resulting investigation that was then defined as a "hoax" by Trump and his supporters. If that's not a big deal then why would this be?