- iSDaily Thursday – February 15th, 2018 – Episode 030
Article Follows after show promotion [...]The post iSDaily Thursday – February 15th, 2018 – Episode 030 appeared first on iState. […]
If you want to understand the nature of political reality, all you have to do is look at the unfolding Mueller investigation. In that investigation, it appears that democrats and republicans alike are to be hit.
One person that is not being directly targeted, so far, is Hillary Clinton. But, in an article in the Hill, a case is made that Hillary Clinton openly violated the law by not disclosing the money her campaign spent to have Fusion GPS do opposition research for her against Donald Trump.
The story itself reveals that there is really not that much difference between an Elephant and a Donkey. One will kick you and the other will stomp over you. Either way, you’re gonna have a bad time no matter which animal you choose to follow.
From The Hill
In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee arranged to pay a company called Fusion GPS to conduct research on Donald Trump. Fusion started researching Trump for The Washington Free Beacon and, reportedly, a Republican candidate whose identity is not yet known. Then, in April 2016, the Clinton campaign and the DNC took over the funding of Fusion’s research.
There was nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement. To the contrary, although opposition research sometimes gets a bad rap, it is a perfectly legal — even healthy — practice. Opposition research can provide voters with information about the records and conduct of candidates in important areas that the candidates themselves would often rather not discuss.
But to make sure that voters also have the financial information they need, federal law requires campaigns to file reports with the Federal Election Commission. In terms of spending, this requirement is not complicated: The campaign basically just files a report with the FEC listing the people and companies it paid money to and what that money was for. The descriptions can be very simple, such as “advertising,” “payroll” or “research.” The FEC then posts this information online for everyone to see.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC did not comply with their legal obligation to disclose their payments to Fusion for opposition research. Instead, they concealed the fact that any payments were made to Fusion at all. Rather than disclosing the spending, the campaign and the DNC told the FEC the money had gone to their law firm, and the Clinton campaign said that it had made the payments for “legal services.”