(07-18-2018 07:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual.

And that differs from the Steele Dossier, exactly how?

Quote:In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele, I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.

Lolz..... this is the fastest tango I have ever seen to distinguish 'getting dirt'.

Dirt that is supplied by active enemies through 'active research' is amazingly distinguished by dirt supplied by active enemies through 'their volition'.

Yeah -- makes *all* the difference.... Last 10 secs says it all....

So you’re saying that a campaign being willing and eager to meet with a representative of a hostile country with the promise of information on their opponent is not a piece of evidence supporting an investigation into collusion between those two parties?