Replies

Yes. Did you? Do you have a point?

Yes.
If one reads the article one can quickly deduce the Russian lawyer was part of the conspiracy (AKA insurance policy) to prevent President Trump from holding office. For example:

"She insisted that Glenn Simpson, whose firm Fusion GPS was hired to compile the dossier and who was questioned by the House Intelligence Committee in January, had been "framed."

They are so busted that they have a Russian lawyer complaining the Special Counsel is not really investigating President Trump because they know she herself was part of the Clinton conspiracy; hence she does this from Berlin (Merkel country; there is a reason there is distance between President Trump and certain EU countries that favored Clinton; how much did they favor her? what INTEL favors did they do on her behalf?).

One cannot "quickly deduce" that at all. That is shallow and sloppy thinking. Yes, her claim that Simpson has been "framed" is a curious one, but it needs to be examined thoroughly, not ignored. Of course it is much more likely that Glenn Simpson is an active leading member of the conspiracy, but that does NOT mean he cannot also be a "fall guy" for others. It is important to know what her basis is for saying Simpson has been framed and see if she has any useful info to offer. I don't assume that she does (she may just be a cut-out for others) but it is foolish to assume that she does NOT have any useful info about these matters.

As for her role, she seems to be more of a loose cannon, not some close conscious member of a conspiracy. She has been used by others, but the questions are HOW has she been used, what did she really know before, during, and after her interactions with ppl at Trump Tower and at FusionGPS. You and Mueller seem to assume you know all there is to know. I don't assume that at all, for myself. I want this woman interrogated and investigated very closely. Yet, she may prove to be much more helpful to Trump's situation than you imagine.

If she were a conscious part of the anti-Trump conspiracy she would not be giving this kind of interview or testimony at all. She would be trying to bury Trump & co., not indicating (as she has done) that her role had nothing to do with the Russian govt or FSB, etc. If she were any willing or conscious part of such a conspiracy she would have been far more damaging, in far more detail, than appears to be the case. She is an odd aspect of this saga, and her role , influences, and activities need to be fleshed out more thoroughly.