Neither of those articles says a campaign used the government to do its investigation. The Clinton campaign used a private investigation firm in your first article just like all campaigns in history. The FBI investigated Trump in your second article because that's its job — it didn't give special access to the Clinton campaign.

You've proven GP's point.

I followed the links to find out which governments the Hillary campaign had been working with. Neither of them did this. I'm not sure why your post was downvoted.

Well, if you look into what Fusion GPS is (a lobbying firm working for the Russians on the Magnitsky Act, requested the meeting with Donald Trump Jr under pretenses of having damaging info on Clinton, recently refusing to appear and ultimately pleading the fifth in front of the senate intelligence committee, and under fire for failure to register under FARA) then I can understand your confusion about why it's bad that the DNC paid them 9 million dollars for a shaky dossier which has already had parts discredited, and then delivered that dossier to the FBI. Strange that the newspaper would leave those interesting parts out, right?

Edit: here is a source backing up the claims about Fusion GPS https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/07/11...

> Strange that the newspaper would leave those interesting parts out, right?

What's strange is that you cited as a source a newspaper article you don't agree with and which not only doesn't support but discredits your original claim. Then you spin wild conspiracy theories essentially claiming that Fusion GPS is an arm of the Kremlin without any sources.

This is a much better explanation of your links than a simple "Oh yeah". However, this information is not present in your links. Perhaps you should understand that not everyone is familiar with what you know, and you should provide more context?

Also, the entire point of providing links is to back claims, you need to now provided additional links to the ones you just made. (EDIT: Now provided. Thank you).

I'm still baffled why these reasonable concerns, no context being provided, is receiving a ridiculous number of downvotes.

You're right. I have been following this story closely and I sometimes assume that those who call me a crazy conspiracy theorist have read the same stuff published in the mainstream media as I have.

According to this article in Mother Jones from October 31, 2016 (this is the first mainstream media article I have seen that directly references/quotes the dossier): http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave...

Steele denied in October 2016 that his "US company" client (the DNC) instructed him to go to the FBI. But then again, Mark Elias has been denying that the DNC funded this dossier for a year:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/fusion-gps-fallou... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-gi...

In June 2016, a request to the Fisa court for surveillance of the Trump campaign was turned down. In July, the dossier was delivered to the FBI. In October, the Fisa surveillance request was granted. However, this Fisa court request was NOT about Carter Page - Page had been under FBI surveillance since a FISA court ruling in 2014: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-governm...

> Fusion GPS

> requested the meeting with Donald Trump Jr under pretenses of having damaging info on Clinton

This is a major claim to make without any solid substantiation.

From your “edit” link:

> Fusion GPS says it had no involvement in the meeting although it did work on a lawsuit that involved Veselnitskaya for more than two years. The firm’s work on the Trump dossier was on a different timeline. Nevertheless, Trump’s legal team is already conflating the two issues as part of their defense of the president’s son.