Exactly — it’s legal under campaign finance laws for a campaign to pay for dirt from foreign sources. If you pay for it, you’re not being gifted a thing of value.
-
-
But didn't Steele get his info from an analog to Trump's Natalia Veselnitskaya? If that person wasn't paid, how is it different?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Trump's sub-sources were paid.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Do you mean Steele’s not Trump’s?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yes. I did. Thanks.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I assume there has to be a certain amount of compilation to turn dirt into a thing of a value. If I call a campaign staffer with a juicy story about their opponent, I haven’t contributed a TOV such that they have to pay me or otherwise report it as an in-kind contribution.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Right. But the campaign had already been told what Russia had of value: Clinton emails.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Not in so many words, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
We don't know precisely how Papadopoulos passed the message along. But there's a good reason to believe yes, in so many words.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @EricColumbus and
One of your posts that really stuck with me was how Trump tweeted about the emails and a specific number of 823 Hillary staffers about 40 min after the meeting started. Seems like there could be very clear evidence of coordination.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.