Follow the money: How could Hillary Clinton not know about DNC funding ‘Russian dossier’?
The Russian dossier funding revelations are horribly damaging to the Democrats who should distance themselves from Hillary Clinton as she has to answer a lot of questions about how and why, says RT America host Ed Schultz.
Hillary Clinton's election team and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly helped to bankroll the so-called Russian dossier against Donald Trump which outlined unsubstantiated links and deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign in the run-up to last year's presidential election.
A report by the Washington Post alleged that Marc E. Elias, a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer along with the DNC, hired Fusion GPS to conduct research into Trump's supposed coordination with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
RT: It is now confirmed the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign helped to fund the Trump-Russia dossier. Are you surprised by this?
Ed Schultz: I am disappointed because it is a sad commentary on politics in our country. And I also think it is very damaging to the process. This emboldens the president and his credibility because he has said all along he has been a victim of fake news. You can’t get any more fake than this. But it also has strained relations between the US and Russia in the process. The accusation the Clinton surrogates made on cable shows day after day for months on and before the election underscored just how dishonest the Democrats were saying that this was Vladimir Putin’s dossier. That this was Russian intelligence, and this was dug up by the former British agent which now we know was being paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. You have to follow the money. You referenced the interview with President Trump where he said they spent a lot of money on it. They sure did. How could Hillary Clinton not know that this was going on? How could John Podesta, the chairman of the campaign not know that some $6 million was being spent by the lawyer to go out and get this trash smear research done on their opponent, Donald Trump, which has soured relations and played a part in souring relations between the two superpowers? I think this is horribly damaging for the Democrats. I think the Democrats are going to have to distance themselves from Hillary Clinton, and I think Hillary Clinton has to answer a lot of questions about how and why.
#HillaryClinton campaign lawyer is caught up in more fallout https://t.co/an1KTMGgba— RT America (@RT_America) October 25, 2017
RT: The man who compiled the dossier, Christopher Steele, has ties to the FBI. How do you view the role the FBI has played in this? Have they been impartial?
ES: We don’t know that, and the investigations that are going on right now should bear this out. It should be pointed out that Devin Nunes (R-CA) who recused himself from the House Intel investigation into collusion, went out and did some investigating on his own. And all of this came to light through his investigation when he wanted to see the tax records of the firm Fusion GPS and of course, they uncovered all of these payments from the DNC and from the Hillary Clinton campaign. If it is to be dug up in Washington, it is going to be found. And I think that at the end of the day, we are going to find out that the Clintons were pretty heavy into smearing Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is going to be emboldened by the truth by saying that this was all fake news.
RT: The Washington Post also reported that an anonymous Republican donor helped fund the dossier prior to involvement of the DNC. Why aren't we seeing as much focus on that aspect of the story?
ES: It didn’t have the impact that a presidential candidate has. There’s a difference between a Republican donor who wants to dig up dirt on a candidate as opposed to someone who could be the president of the US taking campaign funds and trying to dig up dirt, but then - here’s the key – trying to pin it on a foreign country. It was surrogate after surrogate that went out on the cable shows in [the US] for months, and they tried to blame this on Russia and accused the Russians and the Trump campaign colluding to deep six Hillary Clinton in the election. The fact of the matter is – this was all ginned up and paid for by the Clinton campaign, by Hillary Clinton, by the DNC, hired a smoking gun who was retired and off doing other things – who by the way isn’t giving any interviews. Where is this Christopher Steele? Why isn’t he speaking up? Why isn’t John Podesta speaking up? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton speaking up? And I’ll tell you why: because they are all guilty.
RT: Why do you think the Washington Post which been accused of being the mouthpiece of Democratic Party for the last two years decided to publish this revelation now?
ES: Because Devin Nunes went to the Washington Post with the story. The Post didn’t dig this up. That is the nasty truth of all of this. This is not journalism. This is the House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes who has recused himself, got this tax information and gave it to the Washington Post and said “Here, print this. Try to tell a lie about this. See how Hillary Clinton was involved in this. You want a real story, here it is.” That is how they got it. The fact of the matter is, had Devin Nunes not gone after the truth, this would have never come out. The tax records are what they are. What is interesting in the legal fight in all of this is that Devin Nunes wants all of the tax records released by Fusion GPS. But of course, their attorneys are in court arguing saying “Wait a minute. This subpoena goes too far. We’ve got so many clients that we are dealing with. This would damage our business.” So, it wouldn’t damage their business. They have offered up the tax records and here are all these payments from the DNC, here are all these payments from the Hillary campaign. That is how they got the story. Devin Nunes to support the president, took this material and gave it to the Washington Post and had the Washington Post in an untenable position where they had to report this if they wanted any credibility whatsoever in the department of journalism.