Trump Declassifies all FISA Information, Releases all Texts, and Ohr Interviews with FBI

Ok, so he was hired to do oppo research.

What exactly is the issue here?

No one said it wasn’t a job.

You said that the printing company would be trying to influence the election.

That is incorrect. The campaign who hired the printing company was trying to influence the election - the printing company is just there to make money.

Oooh so that’s it. Hannity, Judge Jeannine and Lou Hobbs ASKED him, so what could he do?

Just curious. with which political parties did those Congressional campaigns relate?

And as to the forewall:

But the Campaign Legal Center described the FEC reporting as “misleading.”

“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed,” Fischer said. “But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”

Anyone can file a complaint with the FEC.

Has the FEC responded?

Good question. Look it up and let us know. You might also let us know if the FEC agrees that representing opposition research as legal expenses is OK by them.

Why should I do your research for you?

Because you people are the ones saying a firewall is ok to hide that your are really doing opposition research.
But I will help you out. It is not acceptable.

Even “Consulting” is not acceptable. It needs to be specific, like research consulting, or polling consulting.

No, you’re moving the goalposts again.

I said that every campaign does it, and it’s standard operating procedure. I made no value judgements about it.

The FEC does.
It is not legitimate.
But since you say I should do research, you just said that every campaign does this. Prove it.

So what you’re saying is you never talk to yourself…since you don’t speak to partisan hacks and all that…

So they? Seems you deflected the question that inquired exactly what the FEC did about it.

If that is so, I’m sure you can show me the FEC ruling where they found Clinton’s campaign to have violated campaign law.

:rofl:

The whole point of doing it through the firewall is so that no one can “prove” it.

I can only speak from my own experience working on campaigns, which is extensive.

I showed you the FEC webpage on adequate reporting. They insist on greater detail. You look up the specific case if you care about the outcome.
Let us know.
The fact is, the FEC says you need more and accurate detail.
If there are people who falsify this out there, it is still not legitimate.

Well, if you break certain laws that doesn’t mean everyone does. I’m satisfied with what the FEC says. Say, what’s your real name?

Lock her up! Lock her up! :rofl:

You are going to be so shook when this is all over. I almost worry about you :joy:

Weak and lazy, but expected.

:rofl:

Of course you’re satisfied, it supports the narrative you’ve already decided on.

You’re welcome to believe whatever makes you happy - but that doesn’t mean we have to, particularly when I (and other in this thread) know better.