The Right Side of the News

You should know already, it's been out in the open for many months. The dossier came from Fusion GPS, a US corporation based in Washington DC. The author was Christopher Steele. A large part (not all) of the information in the document came from Russian sources.

I admit my opinion is worth nothing, but there certainly are people who DO think she had corrupt intent, and again I'm waiting to see what conclusions they come to when they've fully investigated the situation. If what you say is correct she'll be exonerated again. But if there's deceit involved in it perhaps she won't. Again, what I hear is that she ILLEGALLY destroyed 33,000 emails that included classified emails, then physically destroyed her equipment in case any evidence still remained, then even washed it all down with some kind of bleach to destroy anything that might have escaped the physical destruction. Sure SOUNDS LIKE she was going to great lengths trying to hide something that could expose criminal guilt. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yup, "a large part of the information...came from Russian sources."

You are making claims of fact which are not supported by the extant evidence. The Court was informed that the motivation for paying for the dossier was political.

quote:

---

Source #1 {Steele -- JonF}was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

---

(In a footnote... but lawyers and judges read footnotes). It's out.

I suspect the "extant evidence" is perhaps not exactly all the evidence there is, and that it's not all "out" yet, and maybe even some of what is described there isn't legal anyway, but hey I'm just giving impressions I get so again it's worth nothing. And again I hope the current investigation comes to a conclusion soon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which reveals the bias of your sources.They don't have four. The have three There were 100-odd that were classified afterwards. Then stop making claims of fact that are not supported.The details are critical. If you can't keep track of them you have no business vcommenting.

PROVING corrupt intent is key.

Yup. So fucking what?

Could be. A lot of it is out. And you keep making claims of fact based on what's out, and what's out does not support those claims. Agreed. I'm expecting them to draw it out as long as possible, with lots of salacious leaks.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

As long as you keep making allegations that are false according to what I've been hearing I feel it necessary to say what I've been hearing. None of this is going to matter until the investigation finishes its work, not what you say or what I say.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you know to be out and what the investigation knows to be out may be two entirely different things.I suspect this investigation has no reason to draw it out artificially as the Mueller investigation did, or to leak salacious information as those hoping Mueller would skewer Trump did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You've made claims of fact that are not supported by the extant evidence, as I've explained in detail. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes those are the impressions I have.

The Mueller investigation was very short compared to similar investigations. It was also astonishingly non-leaking, a miracle in Washington.

You presented them as facts.ABE And as I've pointed out in detail, they are falsified by extant information. You certainly can hope for further incriminating evidence,but as far as we (and your sources) know they are promulgating bullshit. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.