The topic is that Trump-Russia Material was released to a reporter, and then the infomation was deemed plausible enough , Due to Trump's and his campaign's own previous actions and statements that it was investigated by the FBI. How have we left the subject?
Let's be accurate. The subject is "Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material to reporter". It's not "Trump gave polling information to Putin" or any of the other distractions that have been thrown up to distort the discussion. So let's parse it, so we can talk about the subject matter, sans sideshow.Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says
: So the source isn't Trump, it isn't Democracy hating Republicans, or whatever boogeyman is trotted out in an attempt to minimize or spin the story away, it's a Clinton campaign insider.Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material
In this case, and let's be specific, it relates to an alleged secret server that Trump had to contact Alfa Bank of Russia. That started with a "computer expert" who passed along this info to his buddy Sussman, a lawyer for the campaign. Clinton campaign IT folk said there was nothing to it. Notwithstanding, Sussman smelled opportunity (and billable hours) and wanted to run with it.to reporter
But even a sleaze like Sussman knew that the story was thin, and even a "friendly" reporter might have a question or two before running it. So let's give it to his buddy James Baker, FBI General Counsel. He can't tell Baker he's working for the campaign, because even a dunce's ears would prick up at that, so he lies and pretends he happened across it and was a concerned citizen. As long as Baker says he will look into it, even if he roundfiles it the second Sussman slithers out of his office, Sussman can then say "The FBI is looking into Trump/Russia banking connections." And Hillary said run with it.
So when you say "the information was deemed plausible enough", it in fact wasn't. It wasn't plausible to Hillary's own staff. It was ultimately dismissed by everyone else who looked at it. Even you. Machts nichts. Damage done. Winning!
Let's be accurate. This headline comes from a trial where there was a report of the Clinton Campaign giving the information to a reporter to vet it out. This was not in a vacuum. This was during a time where Donald Trump and campaign where actively dealing with Russians whether for business details, access to Hillary's servers or other nefarious items.
At the end of the day, information came to a cyber security exper's attention about some interesting traffic occurring between a server at a Russian Bank and a server at the Trump campaign, I have a high doubt about the story that it was just a spam email server, and a ping access, as most cyber security experts can recognize random email headers and ICMP packets. But let's not go to what i think was a pretty crappy FBI investigation into the data.
The end issue is that the data was brought to the attention of the campaign, and they did not know what to do with it, so they sent it to a reporter, and Sussman on his own, representing the Clinton Campaign ,. or in conjunction with the original cyber expert went to the FBI with the data. The only thing Sussman is on trial for is whether or not he lied about who he was representing. There is no question about the claim, or whether it had merit. The FBI investigated. So there was enough THERE , THERE to investigate.
Trump already is damaged goods he is a liar, racist, fraud and a traitor, and a great deal of dishonorable, uneducated or gullible people still follow him and all the fraud he represents.
There was no damage to be done by the leak that even rivals the "Hillary email" scandal, and i suspect based on what was found out about Sussman's receipts we will find out that the Jury has doubts about Durham's lone criminal charge against a person , not for the information he brought, but for the interpretation of who he represented.