NY Times: Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer, Expected Damaging Information on Clinton

Now that Jr has released the email confirming his knowledge and agreement to the intent for the meeting, can we dispense with the charade he didn't know anything about who he was meeting or that he thought it was about adoption.

originally posted by: jordan77
The Russian lawyer's story sounds more believable than Don Jrs. Aside from the not working for the Russian government part.

So she was a Russian spy who wanted to talk about adoptions and claimed to have dirt on the opposition? But she had no dirt on the opposition and nobody in the Trump campaign had any authority over adoptions from Russia. How is that illegal or even unethical?

Where is your proof that she's actually a Russian spy? The fact that she's Russian?

Somebody sent out emails that claimed that she had dirt to pass on to the campaign. Do you really not realize how common it is for a campaign to get such calls and offers? Seriously? Was this past election your first?

Are we really going to have to go over every single meeting that members of the Trump campaign held with anyone? And will we then have to go over every single meeting that members of the Clinton campaign held with anyone?

I can't believe the general population is this dumbed down. But I can believe that the Dems are this desperate. Look, I'm not a Trumpster. He's our president despite my vote for another candidate. I tried to warn people that we would be endlessly involved in scandals like this if he were elected. Go cry in a corner for a while, hug your teddy bear and please get over the fact that campaign personnel meet with people who claim to have dirt on the opposition.

Oh, now it's looking like the people who set up the meeting---were hired by the DNC???
Were members of HRC's campaign actually going to try to feed this woman something false and make Trump look bad when he released it? Did she refuse to play with them once the meeting happened? I don't know but I also can't understand why the Clintonites and msm have their panties in such a wad.

a reply to: diggindirt


This subject is THE BIG SHINY OBJECT of the day. Distracting Democrats from their 2018 preparations, LOL.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: diggindirt


This subject is THE BIG SHINY OBJECT of the day. Distracting Democrats from their 2018 preparations, LOL.

No, the big shiny object is the lies told that there was no collusion with the Russians during the campaign. And the bright light of truth is making that shiny object sparkle like a diamond in a goats a**.

The irony is that the truth came from Trumps own family.

Now it looks like Pence is trying to distance himself from the Trump family....what's that tell you?

a reply to: olaru12

What crime has the Trump family committed?

Trump Jr.'s account of the meeting (expanded version) and the Russian lawyer's account of the meeting don't make a lot of sense on the face of it.

His contention is that it was a meeting where the Russian lawyer was supposed to communicate information, from Russia, related to improper conduct related to funding, by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. He then said that it quickly became clear that the Russian lawyer had nothing of interest to offer, upon which she turned to the subject of the Magnitsky Act and Russia's adoption policy. At that point, either Manafort or Kushner left the meeting and a half hour discussion of adoption policy in Russia took place, after which the meeting ended.

I'm leaving out details of how the meeting was arranged to get to the bare bones of the event.

The Russian lawyer says, essentially (extraneous exculpatory protestations omitted), that Trump Jr. asked her if she had information about Russian funding of the Clinton campaign, which she says she did not, after which the adoption policy was discussed and the meeting ended.

Trump Jr. said that it became clear to him that the meeting had been arranged on a pretext but really to achieve another purpose. The pretext being Russian information detrimental to the interests of the Democrats and Clinton, the true purpose being an attempt to lobby against the Magnitsky Act with the son of a presidential candidate.

As a scenario this makes very little sense to me, as presented.

Who, attempting to elicit support from a politician's son, Donald Trump Jr., would set up a meeting under false pretenses? This is not a reasonable scenario, on its own, as an out of the blue one off.

Donald Trump Jr. took this meeting because he thought it was going to be about "oppo" from Russia on Clinton. When it turned out not to be, he was polite to the Russian lawyer and spent another twenty minutes listening to her before shutting it down and going on with his life.

She got to give her spiel on Magnitsky. He must have been a little annoyed at it all, but smiled, listened and walked out the door without getting what he admits he came for, Russian dirt on Clinton.

It all sounds a little kooky, especially on the Russian lawyer's part, just barely plausible, except, yes, we do live in a wacky world of kooky celebrity worship and after all, she's from Moscow, and I can kind of buy it, but then, I remember that she is Kremlin connected, loosely, and she is a lawyer. But OK, it really just boils down to a scam run by a kooky Russian lobbyist.

The various elements of the story, recited above, only really start to cohere and become realistically plausible when one more factor is included in the mix.

What is that?

The following is all speculation for which I have no evidence. I am not making any allegations or even insinuations. I am merely speculating.

That this whole scenario took place within a wider context of ongoing collusion with the Russians that the Russian scammer was well aware of, on the one side, hence the sort of initial approach (dirt on Clinton) to setting up the meeting, and which Donald Trump Jr. was aware of, one the other side, hence his taking the crazy meeting, along with Paul Manafort, in the first place.

In other words, this sort of thing was an ongoing thing and that fact was capitalized on by the Russians who arranged the meeting, and aroused no suspicion with Trump Jr. because this kind of meeting had been part of the campaign ecosystem for some time and part of the Trump ecosystem for a very long time, anyway.

To me, that's the only way that this meeting, as described by the participants, becomes plausible.

Seems like a whole lot of nothing to me. The woman used false pretense to get the meeting, didn't have any information of value, the meeting ended. Not sure what the big deal is. With this woman's connection to democrats, I think that's where you will find the real story, if there is a story to be found.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

I think Trump and the Russian lawyer are telling the truth about the meeting and she is exactly who she says she is, and nothing more, i.e., a lobbyist trying to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. She's a lady lawyer with a facebook page and does not strike me at all as the sort of person who would be entrusted by the circles around Putin with anything of real importance or sensitivity, hence their adamant denials of even knowing who she is. They know who she is, alright, because they want to have the Magnitsky Act repealed, but they don't know her on the level of highly secret and sensitive information involved with tipping a US election result.

I think her bosses at Prevezon Holdings and possibly other Russian clients, knew that the Trump campaign was connecting in some way with the Russian government and they decided to slipstream the process and get a hearing for their anti-Magnitsky position from Trump Jr, using false pretenses that they knew would work.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I don't think Veselnitskaya is high up in the inner circle of the Kremlin, but she is well connected politically and acting toward removing something that Vladimir Putin regards as a serious burr under his saddle.

I would imagine that there was a FISA warrant on her, and probably one on Goldstone as well, allowing their communications to be monitored. I'm guessing that's why we know about this meeting and the emails. Question is, "Who leaked the email to ABC News, which prompted DT Jr to prempt thier report and release the emails himself, along with his cover story?" Did the leak come from Mueller's investigation, a congressional committee member or the Russians?

They probably also have any communication she might have made to Aras Agalarov regarding the meeting. DT Jr can tell the public anything he wants, but if he lies to the FBI, Congress or a Grand Jury, that's a felony!

Satire:

. . . and of course there is always "Old faithful"

a reply to: windword

So she is a Russian spy? Who wants to change the adoption agreements between Russia and the US? And has a FISA warrant for what exactly? You got a link for that?

And what is her connection to the DNC guy who apparently got the ball rolling on this meeting? Was that a result of the DNC having refused to talk to her? Or did she meet with members of the Hillary campaign also on this issue? Or Bernie? Did somebody involved in the uranium deal with Hillary direct her to the Trump campaign?

How on earth is releasing the emails and telling what he remembers "prempting" the story that actually didn't exist in the first place? Had he not released the emails you and the msm would have been screaming for him to do so....some people's children are never happy.

So a DNC dude associated with the fake Trump dossier sets up a meeting with the Trump campaign, using dirt on HRC as bait, with a Russian spy who really only wanted to talk about adoption policy? I think I got it. That's the story that the folks attending the meeting are telling. So unnamed sources at the WH and elsewhere, who didn't actually attend the meeting are saying something else was going on? Did money pass under the table? Were further contracts offered or requested? How do these sources know what went on when they weren't anywhere close to the meeting?

This is another Democrat stall to keep from doing the business of the people. Surely to heavens they have better things to do than play detectives about campaign meetings. They all know full well what goes on in campaign meetings. They've all welcomed dirt on their opponents so why all the faux outrage? Is there to be a Congressional hearing on the way he parts his hair next?

a reply to: diggindirt

So she is a Russian spy?

I don't know, maybe. Who said she's a spy? I heard that she was "connected" to the Kremlin, which has been proven to be true.

No. She's a known lobbyist, lobbying for overturning or relaxing the Magnitsky Act.

You got a link for that?

Why? I never asserted my opinion as fact.

And what is her connection to the DNC guy who apparently got the ball rolling on this meeting?

What DNC guy? The meeting was initiated by Emin Agalarov, according to DT Jr.

How on earth is releasing the emails and telling what he remembers "prempting" the story that actually didn't exist in the first place? Had he not released the emails you and the msm would have been screaming for him to do so....some people's children are never happy.

ABC had the emails, and were preparing an article on them when they called DT Jr for a comment. He asked them to wait in publishing their article while he prepared his comment, and then he released them himself with his prepared story.

a reply to: windword
What, pray tell, should Jr. have done differently? If you get a cold call from the media about a 20 minute meeting that was held months ago, one of literally hundreds such meetings---wouldn't you do the same thing he did? Say something along the lines of "Hey, hold on a minute and let me get back to you." You would then turn to your staff and say find me everything you have on a meeting with...."
Apparently the media got the emails from the DNC dude who routed the Russian spy to the Trump campaign. The fake dossier hadn't worked as well as they'd hoped. But it didn't go as they had hoped when Jr saw thru them in less than 20 minutes time. This guy was mentioned in the HuffPost article. Trump's attorney has apparently tracked down the source of the recommendation for the meeting. Why on earth would a DNC mullah whose sorry attempt to blackmail Trump had failed miserably---be sending a Russian spy to the Trump campaign?

“We have learned from both our own investigation and public reports that the participants in the meeting misrepresented who they were and who they worked for,” Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump’s lawyers, said in a statement published by Circa. “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'll just bet there are some high level Dems that are frantically trying to get this aspect of the story buried deep, as deep as Seth Rich's grave.

a reply to: diggindirt

What, pray tell, should Jr. have done differently?

Well, he shouldn't have lied about not having meetings with any Russians. He should have come clean in the first place. Otherwise, if I were in dirty Don's position, I would have done the same thing, and pre-empted the press. But, I'd be careful not to let my big mouth Dad call it "transparency"! LOL

a reply to: windword

"Who leaked the email to ABC News, which prompted DT Jr to prempt thier report and release the emails himself, along with his cover story?" Did the leak come from Mueller's investigation, a congressional committee member or the Russians?

Jared Kushner's lawyers searched Kushner's emails, looking to see if they could find something else that he should report on a new revision of SF 86 (security clearance application). 4th so far.

They found the emails because D T Jr had forwarded them to him. The lawyers then added the meeting to the form.

Once the meeting was on the form, questions would arise. Kushner decided to let his brother in law take the fall and have to do all the explaining. The possibility exists that they came from Kushner's lawyer.

See today's Final Word on MSNBC

a reply to: windword
So, in your world, releasing the actual documents about which the press is making inquiry is something other than being as transparent as possible, even when those documents might contradict something you said earlier?

How again was it that he "pre-empted the press'? Did he ask for time to collect the material to which they were referring and give his side of the story? And did he used threats or intimidation to "pre-empt the press" or is it a perfectly acceptable and ethical model in journalism to allow both sides to tell their story?

I do agree however that he probably shouldn't have been meeting with illegal alien spies to talk about dirt on Hillary or Russian/American relations concerning adoption of children. Too much high level stuff there---too many high level officials could be damaged if there was transparency on both those issues. So if he is proven guilty of meeting with an illegal alien Russian spy he should be severely punished.