Durham's investigation of the investigation

Interesting but it is not something we were not already aware. I'll need to see the email from someone high up in the Clinton Campaign that actually states Hillary approved it herself before I believe she actually did. Hillary is not stupid and she knows that approving something like that should not be done in a way that can actually be traced back to her on it.

 

That quote actually came from a memo from the CIA to the FBI that you can read for yourself at the link. I would highly recommend doing so. It is an unusual memo and is clearly meant to be close hold based on how the CIA tells the FBI to handle the information.

 

Typical of you - blast the source but in this case, how about reading the declassified CIA memo chief.

 

I have read that underlying memo. Which says almost nothing BTW since it’s only 3 pages and so much is redacted. The hack happened. Are you suggesting the memo is proof it didn’t? Like… you are think it was a false flag or something?

The funny thing is Trumps goons were actually engaging these hackers and with Wikileaks at the same time Clinton was having her discussion. Maybe she knew this for a fact (suggesting she was getting advanced intel on it). Maybe she was just strategizing as a politician as far as media taking points. But either way, her discussion doesn’t change what actually happened around the ‘16 election. The DNC was hacked, even Trumps DOJ, as untrustworthy as it was at the top, confirmed this. The Trump people engaged those Russian criminals, with the hackers and Wikileaks you can’t even call it “unwittingly”. They pursued stolen data from cyber criminals. What Clinton was talking about as it pertains to that is irrelevant, provided she didn’t commit her own separate crimes. Although I fail to see what that would be here. Perhaps you can enlighten us what the theory is, other than a politician being a politician?

 

Why do you keep skipping over the part where the Clinton Campiagn hired a foreign national who hired a Russian national suspected of working for Russian Intelligence that developed a serious of fictitious reports that the campaign gave to the FBI which resulted in a FISA warrant issued against campaign advisers of the opposing campaign?

If you want to say what the Trump campaign did was bad, why can you not at least admit what the Clinton Campaign did was at least as bad?

 

Because not only was it not “at least as bad”, I see nothing inappropriate about hiring Steele. Steele was ideally qualified with a top flight resume.

The dossier was not a law enforcement work product. It was not a media report. It was political opposition research conducted by a private firm. The standards are not close to the same.

While it definitely seems like there are legit questions about the Carter Page warrant, and perhaps the ease at which FISA warrants are approved. You seem hung up in the investigations that were not central. I look at them as irrelevant, other than the general idea that FISA courts shouldn’t be so easy, although like any other crime all it should take is “probable cause”. If looking at something like the Mueller investigation, the Carter Page stuff was not relevant at all. Nor were my concerns with Trump connected to the Steele Dossier, often, my concerns with Trump were words that came out of his own damn mouth. No “opposition research” needed if you have eyes, ears, and a brain.

 

So there was nothing inappropriate about the Clinton Campaign hiring a foreign national to dig up dirt on HRC's opponent? And if it was appropriate, why use a law firm and then a contractor to hire him? Why did the Clinton Campaign not directly hire Steele? And if it was just political oppo, why did it end up in front of the FISC and how did it get there?

I'm hung up on the fact the US IC's capabilities were used against a political campaign for POTUS and it was based off of fictitious research paid for by the opposing campaign. If the roles were reversed on this one, you would be screaming bloody murder about it.

 

What do you mean “if” the roles were reversed?

Even setting aside Trump “buddies” illicit activities in ‘16 with Wikileaks and the Russian hackers, what do you think Giuliani was doing in ‘20 in Ukraine?

 

Nothing from other sources like the WP, NYorker, etc. that have written extensively on the investigation and I believe if they had new information they would write on it

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Covering for his Buddy Joe's son Hunter?

 

Im sure that response made sense in your mind. It doesn’t.

 

And let's not forget that the public knew nothing about the Steele Dossier or any investigation of Trump's Russian ties until after the election.

In reality, the same FBI that was supposedly "conspiring" against Trump actually threw him the election by constantly leaking developments in the Hillary investigations to keep that story alive.

 

Please answer the question:

Was inappropriate about the Clinton Campaign hiring a foreign national to dig up dirt on HRC's opponent? And if it was appropriate, why use a law firm and then a contractor to hire him? Why did the Clinton Campaign not directly hire Steele? And if it was just political oppo, why did it end up in front of the FISC and how did it get there?

Let me know when you can prove if the FBI under the Trump Admin got a FISA warrant on a FP advisor to the Biden Admin. Until you can do that, you cannot say the roles were reversed.

 

My God, are you really this naive?

 

Yes. It was appropriate for Clinton to hire Steele (or more accurately, to hire his company), and as Republicans have hired him as well, they must have thought it was appropriate too. This is the guy that broke the FIFA corruption doing this work as a private citizen/contractor.

No clue how it’s normally done, whether the lawyer hiring him is the typical arrangement. Not really something that bothers me either way, nor does the fact he’s British bother me.

 

When did Republicans hire Steele?

So you are OK with foreigners interfering in US Elections to help one side?

Hiring foreigners to dig up dirt on your political opponents is not "normally done." That is why the Clinton Campaign went through a law firm, who hired a private company, who then hired Steele. The Clinton Campaign was intentionally distancing themselves from Steele because they knew it was wrong and wanted plausible deniability.

 

How is any of that inappropriate or illegal? Steele was funded by a Republican donor and Rubio supporter before the Clinton campaign took it over. Oppo research is paid for by politicians all the time.

 

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on this. Steele was never hired by Republicans. You are thinking of Fusion GPS which was hired for Rubio. After Rubio dropped out, Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie for the Clinton Campaign and then the hired Steele. Steele NEVER worked for a Republican.

How many times has oppo research ended up in front of the FISC and resulted in a FISA warrant issued against an adviser to the opposing campaign?

 

Fair enough on Steele being hired by Republicans. So Fusion GPS was hired by Repubs to do oppo research on Trump, and then was hired by the Dems to continue it. Fusion then hired Steele. Do I have this right? And if so, what is inappropriate or illegal about it?