I have more info to add to this.
bkmk
Why do I smell Hillary?
None Dare Call it Sedition.
It’s curious that in June 2016, Hillary would have been focused on plans to post-election challenges to Trump’s victory in November 2016. Did she know that the polls were bogus? She sure seemed shocked when she lost.
Tracy Beanz is reporting what she sees in testimony, but that testimony smells like a cover story by Elias and Fusion GPS. Hillary’s purpose was to create the appearance of Russian connections to Trump so her news media dogs could raise doubts about Trump so he wouldn’t win. Elias admits to knowing about the media leaks.
Elias, as the Hillary/DNC attorney, needs an explanation of why he was involved. Plotting with Fusion and Steele to manipulate the news media and use the FBI against the other candidate isn’t a legal strategy — it’s participating as a principal in a criminal conspiracy. So Elias has to pretend he was getting info for a legal challenge, just in case his client lost. Preposterous BS. Terminate Elias’s attorney-client privileges with all the DNC-Clinton players. Lock Him Up.
“........Within a filing in the FusionGPS case, is an attachment from a related appeal that Fridman, Aven, and Khan filed in litigation they also brought against Orbis (Steele’s company). The filing includes written answers provided by Orbis in matters before the court in the UK. On page 76, is a courtesy copy of a British High Court Filing involving Christopher Steele and Orbis.
Orbis is asked why Perkins Coie needed the information in the memo about Alfa Bank. The response is quite alarming. Orbis answers (emphasis ours) “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie, LLP. 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 the election” ........”