but even if there was, it's sort of a moot point as Hillary "lost" and is not sitting in the WH right now.

purposes or reasons. He claims that it was to help Hillary win. In fact - if that was the reason for the imbed - it was a complete failure - because Hillary lost and Trump won. Or did Hillary lose? She had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and this still bugs Trump. Any other person would probably just move along. But Trump is bothered by the fact that though he won - Hillary got more votes. I know he's making this an issue to muddle the Mueller investigation. But bottom line - I think it is still eating away at him that Hillary got more votes.

The F'n MORON in the Oral Office keeps threatening to have Hillary investigated....so why do you think it's a moot point?

#2. The Dems are known for turning over stuff like that to the FBI right away. They are smart enough to know better than ignore any such shenanigans.

#3. I believe both campaigns were warned about the Russian type of interference in campaigns early in the game.

An FBI informant was told to meet with a person from the Trump campaign who was known to be a possible Russian asset (actively recruited back in 2013)... one Carter Page.

That such a person was attached to the Trump campaign was reason to find out more about what he and other potential assets like Papadopoulos and Manafort were up to.

trump is just trying his best to muddy the water about it.

What happened was the FBI asked three (albeit it key) people some questions in 2016. There was no spy, or other mole or informant. All that is a lie made up by Fox News and shouted by Tiny Hands and his Twitter addiction.

trump is the source that an informant was imbedded in his campaign.

Comey would have referred to something of that nature at some point during the election.

with one. The first step the FBI would take would be to monitor Russian phone calls. Getting permission to monitor an American political campaign's phone calls is much more difficult than getting permission to monitor that of a Russian national. Once they overheard a Russian phone call to someone in a campaign they might get evidence that could lead to surveillance of the campaign. An informant wouldn't be assigned to a campaign unless there was evidence of contacts with Russians.

What either campaign should have done if any questionable person - foreign or not - approached them would have been to report the incident to the FBI, which would then investigate the questionable person. We know now that a series of pretty questionable and identably foreign people approached the Trump campaign -- where they were welcomed by high level Trump campaigners. This led to the FBI investigating what they were doing.

No one has spoken of any attempts to infiltrate the Clinton campaign. I was going to note that most of her high level campaign officials had long histories of public service and campaign experience. However, that did not stop Manaford! There is NO WAY that had the Clinton campaign actually pulled in Russians (or any other nation's spies) there would not already have been indictments.

For anyone looking for quick information, let’s state this right from the start: there is no difference between imbed and embed. They are just different spellings of the same word; there’s no difference in their meaning, and they are both completely correct to use. However, embed is a far more common spelling today, which is a fact that created the opinion that you can write “embedded” but you can’t write “imbedded.” You can write both, of course, or you can choose to use the embed spelling and its derivatives if you’re not too inclined to swim against the current.