It’s just been revealed that British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who authored the infamous Trump dossier, admitted in court that Hillary and the DNC essentially paid him to help them challenge the validity of the outcome of the 2016 election in the event that she lost. Their assumption was that Russia would have given Trump the victory and they would have challenged it based on that premise.
Wow:
WASHINGTON TIMES – British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election.
He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.
His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.
In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.
“Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”
The Democrats never filed a challenge, but Mr. Steele’s answer suggested that was one option inside the Clinton camp, which funded Mr. Steele’s research along with the Democratic National Committee.
So if Hillary and the DNC never filed a challenge to the lawsuit, doesn’t that mean their original premise of Russian involvement was false?
Or since it was just “one option”, a special prosecutor could be the other? Remember, Comey said it was his intention by leaking his memo document to get a special prosecutor appointed.
Hmmmmmm….