Who one could assume were filtered and vetted by an intelligence agent and could at least be reasonably considered to more accurate.
That is different than meeting directly with an unfriendly foreign operative.
I don't think either is great, would you at least agree that what the Trump campaign tried to do is wrong? Particularly if you are trying to whataboutism the Clinton campaign?
Steele knew this was tantamount to a witch hunt and what kind of info they wanted - just look at there mere claims of what they were looking for/at as far as info. Also, he was anti -trump from the outset. We also know he had no proof of this info being vetted as it has been widely considered suspect at best. The bolded part seems pretty much to have been proven false.
Per your question. I really don't see it any differently than a journalist using any source available to get info. If you are digging for dirt/info on someone why does it matter where it comes from? As long as the information is accurate, I am not sure why the source matters. If you are trump and want to know if Russia has info they could possibly use to blackmail HRC if she were elected, I want to know even if it means it came directly from Russia.
The whataboutism with HRC is just that, granted. Not trying to frame it any other way. I also have no problem with what they were doing if the info they had provided to the fisa court had been accurate instead of what has proven to be mostly unsubstantiated innuendo and some provably outright lies.