In light of recent revelations that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign funded the creation of the Trump dossier in 2016, the former DNC nominee has made an incredulous attempt to justify her actions.
According to Sean Hannity, when asked if there was a difference between her campaign paying for opposition research and President Trump’s alleged connection with Russia, she answered, “Of course, there is. Most serious people understand that. This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary and then when Trump got the nomination the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
Tonight at 11/10c, Trevor and Hillary Clinton discuss the Steele dossier and Trump’s ties to Russia. pic.twitter.com/dxJoAPTj8D
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 1, 2017
The former presidential candidate doubled-down in defense of her campaign’s involvement in the creation of the “Trump dossier” that surfaced early in the 2016 presidential election.
While speaking with Trevor Noah, host of The Daily Show, she was asked whether or not there was a difference between her campaign’s involvement with Fusion GPS and the alleged Russia-Trump connection.
“People say, ‘Hillary, is there a difference between your team paying for this opposition research and Donald Trump’s people working with the Russians to influence the election?’ Is there a difference?” asked Noah.
Mrs. Clinton responded by saying that there was, claiming that because a Republican donor first initiated the research during the Republican Primary election cycle, her campaign lawyer was simply continuing the project.
“He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is. From my perspective, it didn’t come out before the election,” she added.
Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm, was responsible for creating the dossier in the first place, which alleged that, among other things, the Russians had compromising information on Mr. Trump. Hiring author and former British spy Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS provided the reports to DNC lawyer and Clinton campaign lawyer, Mark Elias of the firm Perkins Coie.
Although some parts of the document are correct, especially concerning communications with foreign nationals, most of the report’s scandalous aspects remain, to this day, unconfirmed rumors at best.
The Washington Post reported that Perkins Coie, Elias’s law firm, was paid $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016 by the Clinton campaign while also receiving a $3.6 million sum from the DNC for legal services rendered.
Hillary Clinton is facing a potential investigation from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) over the dossier after the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) alleged she funneled money meant for “legal services” into opposition research instead. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason for expenditures as well as the recipients, something the Clinton campaign didn’t do for their dealings with Fusion GPS.
Hillary Clinton wants people to believe that her paying for opposition research is different from Trump’s alleged Russia connection. Do you think there is a difference?
“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and strategy at CLC and a former FEC official. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”
How Mrs. Clinton intends to keep justifying these actions is yet to be seen. But it’s clear that she won’t be allowed to get away with it for much longer.