What exactly did they do?

[bripat9643]

Information is not considered to be a "thing of value" for the purposes of the campaign funding laws.

Just once in your lazy, incompetent life, you should google before responding. Then you might not make a complete idiot of yourself all of the time.

Opinion | Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

first of all your cite is an OPINION, not a law. As we all know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Secondly, when a foreigner volunteers information, you did not ask for it.

Now, in the case of the dossier and the Clinton campaign, it was asked for and paid for. So you must support prosecution of her and her cronies. right?

Liar. You have no evidence whatsoever that Hillary asked for a foreign national to compile that dossier.

Do you ever stop lying?

Evers??

Of course she did. She hired Fusion GPS, so she asked them to compile the dossier. Laundering the money through her law firm doesn't absolve her of her guilt. It only adds another crime to the charge sheet.

With every post you dig yourself in deeper.

No SHE didn’t do any such thing. She didn’t hire GPS. Her law firm did. And even if she personally directed her law firm to hire GPS by name, she still had no contact with them. She neither hired them or spoke to them.

It is precisely BECAUSE all contact with Fusion GPS was done through the law firm that there is no conspiracy.

You should also look up the definition of “money laundering”. Using legal obtained campaign contributions to purchase research for your campaign, is the antithesis of “money laundering”.

You are so desperate. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all the saw the dossier. The idea that Hillary wouldn't have seen a document she paid $5 million for doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[bripat9643]

You are misinformed. 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

This has been explained 100 times. These fucking morons just aren’t capable of understanding.

They’re being willfully ignorant. If they admit that a donation of information directly from a foreign government to a candidate is illegal, then their entire argument collapses.

Can’t make this up

The way these imbeciles are totally blind to the fact that they are indicting Hillary is utterly hilarious.

LOLOLOL

That's not possible until you can prove Hillary willfully hired Steele.

And by your lack of proof, you've established you can't actually prove that.

That isn't necessary. She knew the contents of the dossier and didn't immediately throw it into the trash. She's guilty.

 

[Faun]

You are misinformed. 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

Information is not considered to be a "thing of value" for the purposes of the campaign funding laws.

According to nobody but you. People pay for information, therefore it is a thing of value.

People also get information for free. In terms of political campaigns, the courts do not define information to be a thing of value. Hillary paid for the "dossier" on Trump and didn't report it. Didn't she break the law, according to you?

Only if you can prove she willfully sought to obtain the dossier from a foreign national — which you proved she didn’t.

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

According to you, and you're a fucking moron …. Republicans must love Hillary since none are investigating her involvement with Steele.

And what is laughable is your made up claim that Hillary had to of seen the dossier before the FBI. Why is it sooo laughable …. ?

Because you have absolutely zero proof she did. Everything you're posting about her on this stems only from your fucking moronic imagination.

 

[Faun]

This has been explained 100 times. These fucking morons just aren’t capable of understanding.

They’re being willfully ignorant. If they admit that a donation of information directly from a foreign government to a candidate is illegal, then their entire argument collapses.

Can’t make this up

The way these imbeciles are totally blind to the fact that they are indicting Hillary is utterly hilarious.

LOLOLOL

That's not possible until you can prove Hillary willfully hired Steele.

And by your lack of proof, you've established you can't actually prove that.

That isn't necessary. She knew the contents of the dossier and didn't immediately throw it into the trash. She's guilty.

Prove she knew the contents of the dossier prior to Buzzfeed dumping the dossier on the Internet...…..

At what point does reality set in with you until you realize you're making all of this up?

 

[Faun]

Just once in your lazy, incompetent life, you should google before responding. Then you might not make a complete idiot of yourself all of the time.

Opinion | Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

Your article is behind a pay wall.

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

Alan Dershowitz says you're wrong:

Dershowitz on Trump Jr Meeting: 'A Candidate Has the Right to Get Information From Whatever Source' | Breitbart

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to do opposition research.

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information on his opponent from any type of source.

“If it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has the right to get information from whatever source the information comes,” he argued.

Dershowitz also pointed out, “If the material was obtained unlawfully, you prosecute, if you can, the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. You can’t include information under the campaign finance law. That would be unconstitutional.”​

LOL

Fucking moron, that’s Dershowitz arguing the law is unconstitutional; which at this point, it’s not.

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

 

[Faun]

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

We know what the laws says. This issue isn't whether the Russians are foreign nationals. The issue is whether information is considered to be a donation. The courts have rule that it isn't. Otherwise, Hillary would be in prison for all those spurned gold digging bimbos who fed her dirt about Trump.

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more fucking moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, fucking moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded fucking moron, huh?

There are no violations, you fucking moron. Can you post an example of anyone being charged with campaign violations for receiving pure information? . . . . . .
No, I didn't think so.

Why would I waste a second of my valuable time researching a strawman like that?? Even if it were true that no one's been charged, it doesn't matter. The law still states nothing of value can come from a foreign national in a national, state, or local campaign. And dirt on an opponent is something of value.

 

[bripat9643]

Your article is behind a pay wall.

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

Alan Dershowitz says you're wrong:

Dershowitz on Trump Jr Meeting: 'A Candidate Has the Right to Get Information From Whatever Source' | Breitbart

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to do opposition research.

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information on his opponent from any type of source.

“If it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has the right to get information from whatever source the information comes,” he argued.

Dershowitz also pointed out, “If the material was obtained unlawfully, you prosecute, if you can, the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. You can’t include information under the campaign finance law. That would be unconstitutional.”​

LOL

Fucking moron, that’s Dershowitz arguing the law is unconstitutional; which at this point, it’s not.

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

We know what the laws says. This issue isn't whether the Russians are foreign nationals. The issue is whether information is considered to be a donation. The courts have rule that it isn't. Otherwise, Hillary would be in prison for all those spurned gold digging bimbos who fed her dirt about Trump.

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more fucking moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, fucking moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded fucking moron, huh?

There are no violations, you fucking moron. Can you post an example of anyone being charged with campaign violations for receiving pure information? . . . . . .
No, I didn't think so.

Why would I waste a second of my valuable time researching a strawman like that?? Even if it were true that no one's been charged, it doesn't matter. The law still states nothing of value can come from a foreign national in a national, state, or local campaign. And dirt on an opponent is something of value.

Your time is about as valuable as lips on a chicken. Why should I bother chasing down any of your demands when you refuse to do the same? That's obviously just a tactic you employ to fend off critics of your idiocies.

 

[bripat9643]

Your article is behind a pay wall.

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

We know what the laws says. This issue isn't whether the Russians are foreign nationals. The issue is whether information is considered to be a donation. The courts have rule that it isn't. Otherwise, Hillary would be in prison for all those spurned gold digging bimbos who fed her dirt about Trump.

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more fucking moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, fucking moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded fucking moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

 

[bripat9643]

She asked them indirectly. She's responsible for the actions of everyone in her employ, that includes Russian intelligence agents conjuring up dirt to use against Trump.

Prove she asked them at all. And prove it without citing yourself as your source .....

ROFL! She paid them for it. That's all that matters. How she laundered the money only compounds the illegality.

Nope, fucking moron, you said she “asked” for a foreign national to produce that dossier.

Needless to say, you are once again expose yourself as the lying fucking moron you are.

She told her law firm to hire them to do it. That's the same as asking the Russian spies to do it.

Fusion GPS is an AMERICAN strategic research company.

Fusion GPS - Wikipedia

How many years did it take you to get out of kindergarten?

So?

 

[bripat9643]

They’re being willfully ignorant. If they admit that a donation of information directly from a foreign government to a candidate is illegal, then their entire argument collapses.

Can’t make this up

The way these imbeciles are totally blind to the fact that they are indicting Hillary is utterly hilarious.

LOLOLOL

That's not possible until you can prove Hillary willfully hired Steele.

And by your lack of proof, you've established you can't actually prove that.

That isn't necessary. She knew the contents of the dossier and didn't immediately throw it into the trash. She's guilty.

Prove she knew the contents of the dossier prior to Buzzfeed dumping the dossier on the Internet...…..

At what point does reality set in with you until you realize you're making all of this up?

Why would I waste a second of my valuable time researching a strawman like that??

 

[bripat9643]

Information is not considered to be a "thing of value" for the purposes of the campaign funding laws.

According to nobody but you. People pay for information, therefore it is a thing of value.

People also get information for free. In terms of political campaigns, the courts do not define information to be a thing of value. Hillary paid for the "dossier" on Trump and didn't report it. Didn't she break the law, according to you?

Only if you can prove she willfully sought to obtain the dossier from a foreign national — which you proved she didn’t.

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

 

[Faun]

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

Alan Dershowitz says you're wrong:

Dershowitz on Trump Jr Meeting: 'A Candidate Has the Right to Get Information From Whatever Source' | Breitbart

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to do opposition research.

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information on his opponent from any type of source.

“If it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has the right to get information from whatever source the information comes,” he argued.

Dershowitz also pointed out, “If the material was obtained unlawfully, you prosecute, if you can, the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. You can’t include information under the campaign finance law. That would be unconstitutional.”​

LOL

Fucking moron, that’s Dershowitz arguing the law is unconstitutional; which at this point, it’s not.

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

Fucking moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

 

[bripat9643]

Alan Dershowitz says you're wrong:

Dershowitz on Trump Jr Meeting: 'A Candidate Has the Right to Get Information From Whatever Source' | Breitbart

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to do opposition research.

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information on his opponent from any type of source.

“If it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has the right to get information from whatever source the information comes,” he argued.

Dershowitz also pointed out, “If the material was obtained unlawfully, you prosecute, if you can, the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. You can’t include information under the campaign finance law. That would be unconstitutional.”​

LOL

Fucking moron, that’s Dershowitz arguing the law is unconstitutional; which at this point, it’s not.

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

Fucking moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

 

[Faun]

Who needs an article when there’s a law...?

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

We know what the laws says. This issue isn't whether the Russians are foreign nationals. The issue is whether information is considered to be a donation. The courts have rule that it isn't. Otherwise, Hillary would be in prison for all those spurned gold digging bimbos who fed her dirt about Trump.

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more fucking moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, fucking moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded fucking moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

Jeez

Learn how to comprehend English, ya fucking moron.

 

[Faun]

According to nobody but you. People pay for information, therefore it is a thing of value.

People also get information for free. In terms of political campaigns, the courts do not define information to be a thing of value. Hillary paid for the "dossier" on Trump and didn't report it. Didn't she break the law, according to you?

Only if you can prove she willfully sought to obtain the dossier from a foreign national — which you proved she didn’t.

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

Her law firm followed the law. They hired an American-based research firm.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Fucking moron, that’s Dershowitz arguing the law is unconstitutional; which at this point, it’s not.

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

Fucking moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

LOLOL

Fucking moron... I said Dershowitz said, "He [Dershowitz] claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech..."

And then I quoted Dershowitz saying what I said he said, "Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes."

 

[bripat9643]

We know what the laws says. This issue isn't whether the Russians are foreign nationals. The issue is whether information is considered to be a donation. The courts have rule that it isn't. Otherwise, Hillary would be in prison for all those spurned gold digging bimbos who fed her dirt about Trump.

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more fucking moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, fucking moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded fucking moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

Jeez

Learn how to comprehend English, ya fucking moron.

Learn how to write what you mean, douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

No, that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

Fucking moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

LOLOL

Fucking moron... I said Dershowitz said, "He [Dershowitz] claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech..."

And then I quoted Dershowitz saying what I said he said, "Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes."

You have a serious comprehension problem. You see what you want to see.

 

[bripat9643]

People also get information for free. In terms of political campaigns, the courts do not define information to be a thing of value. Hillary paid for the "dossier" on Trump and didn't report it. Didn't she break the law, according to you?

Only if you can prove she willfully sought to obtain the dossier from a foreign national — which you proved she didn’t.

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

Her law firm followed the law. They hired an American-based research firm.

The firm obtained information illegally from foreign spies.