emptywheel

A correction of your linked article. Not emails "on" Clinton but emails "of" Clinton which would rule out the Wikileaks releases. Also, why not consider an alternative theory that the 7-month delay occurred because P's alleged comment didn't actually trigger the investigation?

You actually appear unaware of some public and non-public aspects of this story, so I'll leave the Clinton comment. Yes, it's possible Pap wasn't deemed that important. It's possible Strzok lost fight over "insurance" policy, & they didn't aggressively pursue during election.

Also possible that the NYT story that the Papadopoulos comment triggered the investigation (displacing the Carter Page explanation) was based on sources who seeking to coverup the dossier's role as trigger of the investigation.

You mean the foreign sources it cites? Why would Australians care?

So am I. I, however, have actually looked at how they describe their sources and the other unnamed sources implied by their sourcing statements. You apparently have not.

1 of 2 / I don't purport to have as much info and expertise as you -- in fact I don't have *any* expertise. But there's been enough false reporting to justify consideration of an alternative explanation that the NYT may have been willingly manipulated by

2 of 2 / sources who wanted to protect the dossier against allegations that it was cause of the investigation.