So that’s it? You’re going to end on “Team Clinton had Trump investigated for the intent to obtain information they were just planning to sit on?” Final answer?
No I think they had him investigated to get opposition research to use against him but what they got wa so serious, but unverified, that they chose not to make it public.
How do you think they were going to use it against him? Isn’t the best case scenario for Team Clinton here, leaking the dossier without it leading back to them?
Even if everything her accusers say about her is true, what's been presented in court is nothing but hearsay and speculation. Exactly zero proof of any kind has been introduced. Regarding the theory that Trump asked Raffensperger to just count 11,780 more votes for him that apparently happened to be lying around unaccounted for, you literally have to be the amongst the stupidest people on earth to believe that was what he meant. I mean just colossally stupid.
Potentially for a variety of reasons. 1) the FBI had already initiated investigative counterintelligence into Trump based on potential Russia collusion, which was public knowledge before the election. 2) Leaking the full dossier leads to more skepticism regarding corroboration of the allegations and credibility. I’ll try asking you again in another way: what would’ve been better for the Clinton Campaign, paying a private firm to investigate Trump for their their own exclusive personal knowledge, or leaking dirt of a campaign opponent via proxy making the American people connect the FBI with the allegations rather than Team Clinton?
and speeding is speeding but the drunk guy that crashes into a school zone doing 90 is going to get charged while the guy doing 70 on the interstate isn't. but you do you and keep dancing to the trump tune, just don't expect the rational world to indulge your fantasies that speeding is speeding
The New York Times disagrees with you. The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It (Published 2017) “Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.”
you cut this part out, you only discredit yourself with such foolishness During the Republican primaries, a research firm called Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.
I noticed you removed “wrong” from your comment. If you don’t mind me asking, why did you remove “wrong?”
I recalled that Hillary's campaign picked up and funded the research into what became the dossier, but I thought we were talking about the hand off to the FBI. I remembered McCain reportedly being the person who handed it off to the FBI, but maybe Hillary's campaign did so as well. I'm not sure. I don't think the full dossier was published until after the 2016 election, although there were some rumors or couple interviews about it I think. It's true that Hillary had been Obama's Secretary of State but her tenure there ended in 2013, so she was a private citizen during this time period though she obviously had many friends in high places. She could have released it all before the election I suppose. Perhaps they were worried about a defamation claim. Or perhaps they were just over-confident and didn't want to risk it backfiring. I don't disagree with you about the difficulties with all this stuff generally. Hillary is actually an interesting example though. While the Trump administration never actually attempted to indict Hillary, based on the arguments being presented on behalf of Trump, she had a get-out-of-jail free card. Presumably, Hillary could have announced her intent to run in 2020 and thereby avoided any potential indictment/prosecution/trial based on her handling of the emails (and any other crimes alleged she might have committed or felt like committing for that matter). Whether she won or lost, she could keep running each cycle (or pardoned herself if that's a thing) to avoid ever being held accountable. That really doesn't seem like a workable solution. On the other hand, how do we enforce the rule of law while safeguarding against various state level prosecutors from indicting candidates in order to force them to expend time and resources fighting various charges? No easy answers IMO. It's been said that bad facts make bad law. Here, I'd say a uniquely bad candidate may force us to make law we think is bad. This is one reason I think the Alvin Bragg case probably shouldn't have been brought. Even though Edwards was charged with paying off a woman, that case feels like a reach to me even if Trump is technically guilty.
because I realized the question wasn't worded properly. who initially contacted and paid fusion to do the research? can you acknowledge the truth or is that not possible?
What part of what I said was incorrect? Rubio hiring Fusion GPS to dig dirt on Trump has no bearing on Hillary hiring Fusion GPS to dig dirt on Trump. It’s also worth noting that the New York Times highlights that Fusion GPS hired Steele after Clinton hired Fusion GPS and Rubio dropped them.
