I thought it was common knowledge, that Hilary paid for the Steele dossier, and Steele got at least some of the dirt about Trump from top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin.
Two sources were unconnected to the others, but the remaining two could have spoken to each other. In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were described as āa former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,ā a āmember of the staff at the hotel,ā a āfemale staffer at the hotel when Trump had stayed there,ā and āa close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow.ā
Thatās how our government operates, the majority in congress, no matter which party is in control, make the decisions, and sometimes they are partisan.
The ACA was partisan, was it not? Does that make it any less valid, as US law?
I wasnāt being insulting but stating my opinion. If you still think that about the FISA warrant despite everything we know to the contrary then thereās nothing we can say that will get you to pull your head of the sand
The dems in congress hate Trump, and want to win big in the mid terms. Making Trump out to be a traitorous Russian conspirator, and the target of a federal criminal investigation, is one of the keystones to their mid term election chances.
Of course, and sometimes the things congress does are partisan. iām sure a lot of repubs took issue with the 2007-2010 Democrat controlled congress. however, the laws they passed, and final results from their committee investigations, were no less valid and accepted as the last word, than the repubs are now. We can dislike them, but that is the way it is.
Donāt be silly. Do not try to pretend that unless Hilary is on video handing the money directly to Steele, that she was not paying for the dossier. Steele paid Russians in the Kremlin, the dossier says this, and we all know this,
If this were the standard we lived by, then money laundering would not be a crime.
Actually from the article āāI am a lawyer, and I am an informant,ā she said. āSince 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.āā. That is a quote.
So not it isnātā the OP saying that, it is the Russian Informer saying that.
Actually, the OP author said that she was ādelivering damaging information on the Clintonsā. I asked what that damaging information was that she delivered. Your sentence is, actually, irrelevant to what I asked.