For a US politician to hire a foreign intelligence agency is arguably an issue. Some might call it treason.

> then is it really an issue if they coordinated with them

Yes, it is.

> How is it any different than hiring a PR firm based in another country?

One is treason, one is not.

forgive me if i'm being uncharitable, but it comes across as if you're being willfully obtuse.

"messed with" means hacking and possible criminal coordination between a campaign and russian officials. if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions.

> if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions.

...not sure which Clinton you mean here, but if you meant Bill, it's quite likely that he did indeed coordinate with Saudi Intelligence in a reasonably similar fashion.

...and so did the man he defeated, George H.W. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties...

"having close ties" is not "illegally coordinating an election campaign", and saudi is not a rival of the united states -- it's been among its strongest allies since fdr. but that's neither here nor there and i'm not interested in defending either of the clintons. you're trying to dodge the issue when it's spelled out. you're arguing in bad faith.