It’s now undisputed that Hillary Clinton’s marketing campaign and the DNC paid for the notorious Trump file (although as Andy McCarthy notes, the media is characterizing the transaction as paying “for the analysis that led to the file”). What’s the response of Democrats and their media buddies to this upsetting information?
The primary response I’ve heard is that it doesn’t matter who paid for the file. What issues is whether or not the allegations contained therein are true. To quote one instance out of many, James Clapper says:
With respect to the file itself, the important thing factor is it doesn’t matter who paid for it. It’s what the file stated and the extent to which it’s corroborated or not.
Clearly, it issues whether or not what the file says is true. On this regard, as Chuck Ross observes, 15 months after the file first fell into the fingers of FBI investigators, we’ve got no indication that its claims are true, and even corroborated.
However who is aware of? Possibly sooner or later, dependable data will emerge that backs the claims spoon-fed to the Clinton marketing campaign by Russian operatives.
In any occasion, there are two the explanation why it issues that Group Clinton paid for the file — causes that apply whether or not the file accommodates necessary true data.
First, Group Clinton’s admission reveals that it colluded with Russia (or collaborated, when you choose). The difficulty of collusion is unbiased of the veracity of knowledge obtained by means of the collusion.
For instance, nobody disputes the authenticity of the DNC emails regarded as hacked by Russians. There is no such thing as a proof that Group Trump colluded within the hacking. But when Group Trump had, the truth that the emails in truth replicate what Democratic insiders had been saying wouldn’t imply there was no collusion.
Recall the furor once we discovered that Donald Trump Jr. was curious about acquiring data opposed to Hillary Clinton from Russian sources. That furor derived from Trump Jr.’s willingness to satisfy, and conceivably work with, Russian insiders.
The outrage wasn’t predicated on the reality or falsity of the data Group Trump may need obtained from Russians. Think about the response if the Trumps had defended assembly with the Russian lawyer on the grounds that they we might solely have used true data from Kremlin-related sources in opposition to Hillary Clinton.
Second, the file issues whether or not or not its contents are true as a result of it undercuts the declare that Russia wished Trump to win the election. Among the most damaging (if true) data within the file comes from sources with Kremlin connections. If Russia wished Trump to win, it’s extremely unlikely that these operatives would divulged such data to Christopher Steele. Scott made this level in his traditional “exploding cigar” publish.
My sense is that Russia was enjoying either side within the 2016 presidential election. Its aim was to not affect the result — an achievement the Russians understood to be past their functionality.
Fairly the aim was to undermine the credibility of our democratic system and, within the phrases of James Comey, to “freak individuals out.” I superior this principle in a publish again in March.
The Russians have succeeded past their wildest desires, because of the unwillingness of Hillary Clinton and her backers within the mainstream media to dwell with the results of final November’s presidential election.