25 Mar 2019 11:04 am
Some interesting old posts that show how the Trump campaign brought all of this scrutiny upon themselves.
They should say no, and call the FBI.
They should not willingly and anxiously set up a meeting with them.
John Podhoretz agrees.
Although the actions of members of the Trump campaign might not technically have been illegal, they are nevertheless disgraceful.
But that doesn't seem to matter.
What should a presidential campaign do when offered dirt on their opponent by a foreign adversary?Misty » 12 Jul 2017 10:11 am » wrote:"Their actions can be unsavory without being illegal."There Is Now Evidence that Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude With Russia
By David French
Donald Trump Jr.’s e-mails are damning.
Just hours ago, Donald Trump Jr. released one of the more astounding e-mail chains of the entire Russia controversy.
The end result is that Americans may now be introduced to the term “attempted collusion.”
Or, perhaps more accurately (based on present information), “failed collusion.”
In other words, there now exists evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton.
First, some background.
On July 8, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner had a previously undisclosed meeting with a Russian lawyer with alleged “connections with the Kremlin.”
In an initial response to the story, Trump Jr. said the meeting was “primarily about an adoption program.”
By the next day, the story shifted.
The Times reported new details suggesting Trump Jr. took the meeting after being promised “damaging information” about Hillary Clinton.
In his own statement, Trump Jr. confirmed that he had entered the meeting seeking opposition research and claimed that the conversation had only moved to the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law that led Vladimir Putin to retaliate by blocking American adoptions of Russian children, after it “became clear” that the lawyer “had no meaningful information” on Clinton.
On July 10, the next shoe dropped.
This time, the Times alleged Donald Jr. had received an e-mail beforehand making clear that the lawyer was acting as “part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy.”
The Times cited three anonymous sources who had “knowledge of the email.”
Needless to say, because of recent bitter experience, I was skeptical.
More anonymous sources? Let’s wait and see.
Well, we didn’t have to wait long.
This morning, in two tweets, Donald Jr. released the entire e-mail chain.
I urge you to read it all.
The first tweet contained his statement and the end of the chain.
The second tweet contained the key first e-mail.
Here’s that e-mail, in full:
Rob Goldstone is a former tabloid journalist and publicist who has business ties in Russia.
He tells Donald Jr.:
Donald Jr.’s response?The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father [Russian businessman] Aras [Agalarov] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin. [Emphasis added.]
“Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer” (emphasis added).
Later in the chain, the Russian lawyer is described as a “Russian government attorney.”
In his latest statement, Trump Jr. claims that the lawyer wasn’t a government official, there was no opposition research, and the meeting was mainly about “adoption policy and the Magnitsky act.”
The lawyer herself backs this claim, and denies that she has any connection with the Kremlin.
Available evidence now indicates that the meeting turned out to be, to use a formal legal term, a “nothingburger” from which the participants quickly disengaged.
So, what are we left with?
From the available evidence, it looks like Donald Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner (the latter two were forwarded the e-mail chain and attended the meeting) attempted to cooperate in what they were told was an official Russian government effort to “support” Donald Trump.
The meeting became meaningless to them only after it was clear that the Russian lawyer couldn’t deliver the goods.
In other words, this isn’t the smoking gun that proves actual “collusion” with Russia, but rather evidence that Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner tried to collude with Russia.
Let’s define our terms.
The word “collusion” doesn’t have precise legal meaning.
It’s largely a political term that refers to claims and allegations that the Trump team worked in some way with Russians as part of the alleged Russian effort to elect Trump.
In other words, to claim that Trump officials colluded with Russians is not the same thing as claiming that they violated the law.
As with many political operations, including dealings with foreign governments, their actions can be unsavory without being illegal.
Indeed, that seems to be the case here.
Yes, the left side of the Internet is lighting up with claims that receiving information is the same thing as receiving an unlawful foreign campaign contribution, but the argument (based on current facts) is frivolous.
The law is designed to capture contributions of definable value, like money or other assets.
What is the definable value of “information”?
Defining speech as a reportable or even illegal “thing of value” would raise serious constitutional concerns.
But to say that it (so far) appears that Donald Jr. didn’t break the law isn’t to defend his actions.
To repeat, it now looks as if the senior campaign team of a major-party presidential candidate intended to meet with an official representative of a hostile foreign power to facilitate that foreign power’s attempt to influence an American election.
Russian collusion claims are no longer the exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists.
No American — Democrat or Republican — should defend the expressed intent of this meeting.
Going further, at long last we can now put to bed the notion that the Russia investigation is little more than frivolous partisan harassment, and it casts in an entirely different light the president’s fury and frustration at its continued progress.
As recently as last week, it appeared that the “collusion narrative” had lost steam, and that the so-called “Russia scandal” had morphed into an attack on Donald Trump’s handling of the investigation, rather than the investigation itself.
If you had told me last week that there existed an e-mail chain where a Trump contact explicitly tried to set up a meeting between a purported Russian official and the Trump senior team to facilitate official Russian efforts to beat Clinton, I’d have thought you’d been spending too much time in the deranged corners of Twitter.
As of now, we should have zero confidence that we know all or even most material facts.
We should have zero confidence that Trump’s frustration is entirely due to his feeling like an innocent man caught in the crosshairs of crazed conspiracy theorists.
It now appears that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met with a lawyer who they were told was part of an official Russian government effort to impact the presidential election.
The Russian investigation isn’t a witch hunt anymore, if it ever was. It’s a national necessity.
"Russian collusion claims are no longer the exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists."
Amen.
They should say no, and call the FBI.
They should not willingly and anxiously set up a meeting with them.
John Podhoretz agrees.
It's obvious that Trump supporters don't give a **** about ethical standards, and that morality is irrelevant to them.Misty » 12 Jul 2017 9:42 am » wrote:Yes, there are.Moscow Mule-Trump Junior Just Described Disgraceful
By John Podhoretz
He said, “I love it.”
Yes, upon being informed in June 2016 he might soon be in receipt of information from the Russian government damaging to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. responded with the words, “I love it.”
He didn’t call the FBI to say he had evidence the Russian government was seeking to interfere with the presidential election of 2016.
No, he said, “I love it” — and set up a meeting with the shady Russian lawyer who, he was told, might share dirt with him.
He didn’t steer the Trump campaign away to shield it from the stain of a potentially scandalous encounter with an operative working for Vladimir Putin.
No, Trump Jr. brought the campaign’s chairman, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, into the meeting.
Donald Jr. loved it so, you see.
Now, the fact that Donald Jr. “loved” the idea of getting the goods on Hillary Clinton from a foreign antagonist doesn’t suggest anything criminal in itself.
According to the three people who set up the meeting — 1) Trump Jr., 2) a bizarre British publicist named Rob Goldstone and 3) a shady Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya — the proceedings ended up centering on Russia’s adoption policy.
So unless they’re dissembling — and they could be — no actual collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government took place at the meeting.
If they’re not prevaricating, this isn’t the smoking gun that will take down the Trump presidency.
To be sure, Donald Jr. lied outright when the New York Times contacted him about the meeting, which is not good, because lying is bad unless someone asks you whether they look fat in those pants and they do.
But as it happens, lying to the New York Times is not a crime.
At the moment, the only person who might be in some legal jeopardy as a result of the meeting is Kushner, who did not mention the meeting on the form he filled out to secure a security clearance (called an SF-86).
The form specifically states that “knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.”
But enough about legal jeopardy.
There is too much focus on the criminal aspect of this event, which might or might not be significant.
There is not enough focus on the moral aspect of this event, which is far more significant.
Donald Trump Jr.’s conduct defines the word “disgraceful.”
He may not have colluded in the disruption of an American election, but the evidence of the emails he released himself indicates he was only too willing and eager to do so.
Now, politicians have had ne’er-do-well relatives throughout all history who have sought to use their kinship to their own advantage.
Donald Jr. was up to something else here.
He was actively seeking to aid his father’s attempt to secure the presidency of the United States.
If we knew he had been or is in bad odor with his father, or that his father has kept his distance from his son due to the kid’s poor judgment or bad behavior, that would help exculpate the president.
But we know Trump Sr. has knitted his children into every aspect of his professional life.
In other words: The president whose daughter took his seat at the G20 conference and who wants his son-in-law to negotiate a Middle East peace is the same man whose son took a meeting with someone he had been led to believe was a Putin cut-out to procure information that would destroy Hillary Clinton.
I’m sure there are people who will defend this, because there are people who will defend anything.
They don't care about the moral aspect.
As long as it can't be proven that someone clearly stepped over the legal line into criminality, ethical standards don't matter to them, and morality is irrelevant.
Although the actions of members of the Trump campaign might not technically have been illegal, they are nevertheless disgraceful.
But that doesn't seem to matter.