Difference noted, but Planned Parenthood is just as capable of violating laws as a for-profit company. I have already agreed that my opinion that Crowdstrike has sinned does not give me the authority to punish that company. Who knows, maybe Loretta Lynch or Brennan told Crowdstrike they were covered. If Crowdstrike is guilty of crimes, Brennan and company should be in greater danger. I believe that the “IC assessment” (that Crowdstrike contributed to) was shameful.
Obviously, Crowdstrike has been providing a service that people wanted (Democrats and Republicans). I didn't go so far as to say that Crowdstrike violated laws (since they are an oppo research company chartered to find dirt in a dirty world), but if they did it would likely be in the arena of obstruction of justice or lying to the FBI. They were a cutout through Perkins Coie, so it's possible that Clinton funding was laundered through Perkins Coie in an attempt to keep the Clintons at arms-length from Crowdstrike (in this sense, I'm not using "laundered" to mean converting illegal money into legal money, but passing it through a shell holder to hide the true source).
Now, the hand-offs matter. Did Crowdstrike block the FBI? I don't think so. I think the Clinton camp stonewalled the FBI and hired Crowdstrike to make an analytical report. So, was it Crowdstrike that obstructed justice or the Clinton campaign?
Also, did Crowdstrike give the report to the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie, or the FBI directly? If Crowdstrike handed the report to the campaign or Perkins Coie and that entity gave it to the FBI, then is Crowdstrike guilty of lying to the FBI or is the person who gave the report to the FBI the guilty party?
Believe me, I know that Crowdstrike isn't an angel here, nor are they stooges or dupes; they knew exactly what they were doing and what part of the chain-of-custody they played in the whole scheme. Does that make them accessories to a crime? Remember now, that we're talking about high-powered DC lawyers, long-term military/intelligence contractors, spouses of DoJ senior management, and the Clintons. These people knew exactly what they were doing, and exactly how the MSM, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the people, would react if discovered.
Until they got caught up in the Russia collusion hoax and the Deep State coup, were they just a legit, but dark, company in a dirty business, dealing with dirty people who supplied dirty dirt on dirty people?
To compare it to its most benign public service (setting aside the high-stakes people they deal with), is it really any different from a private investigator hired to find out if a spouse is cheating, or if a business associate is embezzling, or if a competitor is stealing intellectual property? Does that make the private investigator illegitimate because they deal in dirt?
I'm going to push the envelope now with my comparisons. Could the Crowdstrike situation be like a PI who starts out investigating a cheating spouse but then slowly finds himself caught up in a murder plot, or have I been watching too many old noir detective movies and TV shows?
-PJ