The real story here is not the opposition research, everyone does it, you would be crazy not to. Where the rub lies is in the cover up, as always, the cover up always looks 20 times worse than the story itself. Having done opposition research for both parties and at different levels of elections, it is usually done through lawyers so that there is some deniability, but always knowing that it can come out. CTI has done back ground research for candidates themselves just so the candidate knows what the opposition research is going come up with, this is another set of research that every candidate should and usually does. The Clinton's did it before President Clinton's first and second election, it is just good business. Many times you do come up with unsubstantiated stories that you give very little weight to, but you still report it to your client in case someone else digs it up and a response can be developed. I don't see anything wrong with what the Clinton camp did, it was the cover up that hurt. I do not think even Sen. McCain was wrong to give a copy he received from someone with the unsubstantiated stories in it to the FBI. He almost had to in case someone else started to leak the stories. Then at least the FBI could head off anything damaging to our Nation. The problem is the FBI then leaked it or the Justice Department, which then gave the unsubstantiated story credibility that it did not have before. It all then circles around to the cover up, which President Clinton should have told his wife just never works.
from CTI Consulting http://ift.tt/2izuUlV