[dooblethrowaway]

Does it not bother you that the RealClear Investigations article provides zero external links or evidence itself? It reads to me like a long obfuscation of the difference between "circumstantial" and "concrete" evidence. Much of it built on the fact that lots of information is still redacted. Once the writer eliminates those two nuances, he can create his own accusation (without evidence, mind you):

"The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start."

How does it "suggest" the investigation was compromised? I don't see the evidence.