July 11, 2017

"In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently."

Donald Trump Jr. on Sean Hannity's show tonight.
"This [was] pre-Russia fever. This [was] pre-Russia mania," Trump Jr. told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "I don’t think my sirens went [off] or my antenna went up at this time because it wasn’t the issue that it’s been made out to be over the last nine months, ten months."

46 comments:

n.n said...

In the third trimester, we have long passed the point of no return. Democrats have a Choice. Can they demonstrate a real threat to Mother America or not? Ribbit.

Mike Sylwester said...

The Conservative Treehouse has a superb article titled "Curiosor and Curiosor – Natalia Veselnitskaya Pictured With Obama Officals in DC on June 14th, 2016…".

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/11/curiosor-and-curiosor-natalia-veselnitskaya-pictured-with-obama-officals-in-dc-on-june-14th-2016/

For me, the most interesting idea there is that a possible reason why Rob Goldstone in his e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr., wrote expressions such as "very high level and sensitive information" and "ultra sensitive" and "Russian government attorney" was to provide James Comey's FBI an excuse to investigate (i.e. wiretap) all the Trump associates who attended the meeting.

The FBI's scandalous role in this investigation is a serious problem for the US Justice Department. That is why Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller was appointed to be the special counsel. Mueller's top three priorities:

1) Whitewash the FBI's bogus, never-ending political "investigation" of Russiagate.

2) Whitewash Mueller's BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker".

3) Imprison a scapegoat (someone like Scooter Libby) for lying to Mueller's investigators about some detail, in order to justify the FBI's bogus "investigation" as valid and worthwhile.

Darrell said...

Of course it was Pre-Russia Mania. Hillary, Poedsta, and Mook didn't formulate the Russia Lie until the day after she lost the election, according to that imbed reporter whose book was just published. The Hillary gang decided to build on the "secret" Russia lie that Obama had used to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump. And the compliant Media ran with it. Just like they ran with the YouTube video lie about the Egyptian/Benghazi terror attacks.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump Jr. seemed pretty genuine in all his answers. He looks a bit shell shocked at the pure vitriol and a little ashamed to have added duel to the false fire.

But he expressed regret and said in retrospect he'd do it differently. On top of releasing the email chain, that's two today. One honest and transparent, the other humble and human.

Trump Jr. Is not playing the game by the rules.

Mike Sylwester said...

Another interesting element of the Conservative Treehouse is the identification of Emin. He is a grandson (or step-grandson) of Ilham Aliyev, the billionaire dictator of Azerbaijan. Aliyev's daughter was married to the father of Emin.

I continue to speculate that this involves the Miss Universe contest. Surely Azerbaijan participated in the Miss Universe contest. It's a good bet that Emin sang at the Miss Azerbaijan contest.

The Miss Universe contest provides many opportunities for financial shenanigans. Many people who are involved receive inflated payments. Expensive stuff is purchased abroad. Many people are traveling internationally.

Someone who wants to launder money internationally would find many possibilities in the Miss Universe contest.

Mark said...

Natalia Veselnitskaya Pictured With Obama Officals in DC

What is more, at Trump's speech to Congress -- at a time when the Dems were saying that any meeting with the Russian ambassador was ominous and evidence of wrong -- that very same Russian ambassador was seen walking among the Dems on the House floor.

The question is not who among the Trump people had some contact with some Russian -- the question is who in DC, Dems as well as Republicans, did NOT have some interaction with a Russian or two.

Mike Sylwester said...

The main element of the Conservative Treehouse article is that Natalia Veselnitskaya seems to have some relationship with Michael McFaul, who was President Obama's Ambassador to Russia.

Five days after Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump, Jr., et al., she sat right behind McFaul when he testified to a committee of the US House of Representatives about US policy toward Putin's Russia. At that time, McFaul was pushing the idea that Russia was meddling in US politics.

Gusty Winds said...

A glaring contrast on TV tonight. Trump Jr. on Hannity and the upcoming Joe & Mika interview on Colbert. Joe will play his empty righteously indignant self, and Mika the perpetually pretend perplexed. Puke.

If Colbert had any humor left in him he'd ask Mika if Joe like to be peed on, or how many ball and gag gimp sessions it took to get him to turn his back on his former constituents who overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

David Begley said...

From WikiLeaks

"Clinton Talked About “Phony Environmental Groups” Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.” [Remarks at the Public, 6/18/14]"

The .Russians are interfering in our oil and gas markets. Who funded the North Dakota protest to stop DAPL?

The Bergall said...

Amazon Prime is selling a "Trump" filter for ones TV @ %25 per cent off today only....

Mike Sylwester said...

When Rob Goldstone wrote his e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr., Goldstone was instructed to include the expressions "very high level and sensitive information" and "ultra sensitive" and "Russian government attorney". Maybe a Fusion official wrote the entire e-mail for Goldstone, who merely pressed the SEND button.

NSA intercepted Goldstone's e-mail and informed John Brennans' CIA and James Comey's FBI. "Crazy Comey the Leaker" applied for a FISA authorization to wiretap Trump tower, where the meeting was scheduled to take place.

Soon after Donald Trump was elected, NSA Director Mike Rogers explained all this to President-Elect Trump. Since Trump was informed, he has been playing a clever political game quite knowledgeably. When Trump accused President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, Trump knew that he was correct in this accusation.

Trump Tower was wiretapped because that is where the Veselnitskaya meeting took place.

sodal ye said...

Sitting here in a packed lounge at SEA-TAC, Trump being assassinated on 3 CNN screens to a silent and rapturous audience. It's Orwellian. They're like zombies. Wish I was wearing my Clinton for Prison 2016 t-shirt.

Bob Boyd said...

Thanks for that great link Mike Sylvester.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

The only two who had copies of the emails.

Excluding the NSA and everyone they shared it with, of course, like Obama Administration officials.

Bay Area Guy said...

If Hillary had handled such interviews about her deleted 30,000 SecState emails with such aplomb as junior did, she might well be president today.

Oh well

Mark said...

So who is the source for the NYT?
It must be either his brother in law Kushner, or Goldstone. The only two who had copies of the emails.


How about the NSA. At this point, it is a rather significant possibility that they also had copies of the emails.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Etienne at 11:18 PM

So who is the source for the NYT?

On the Hot Air website, Allahpundit has published an interesting article titled "Who Showed Trump Jr's Emails to the New York Times".

Allahpundit seems to conclude that the culprit is Corey Lewandowski.

Lewandowski had been Donald Trump's campaign manager until Trump replaced him with Paul Manafort. Lewandowski might still be trying to disgrace Manafort.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/11/showed-trump-jrs-emails-new-york-times/

Drago said...

Mike Sylvester: "Soon after Donald Trump was elected, NSA Director Mike Rogers explained all this to President-Elect Trump."

You will recall just how ballistic the dems and media went after it was learned that Rogers had visited Trump in Trump Tower.

The obama-ites had to figure that Rogers spilled the beans on much of the shenanigans. The dems went into high powered "Sessions must recuse himself" mode after that and Sessions, playing the genteel republican senator, naturally obliged. Biggest mistake ever.

wwww said...


Random Thoughts:

The guy who set up the meeting has some hilarious videos -- mandy pandy?

Seems more Burn After Reading then All the President's Men.

My best guess is Kushner is the leaker. Part of a palace intrigue knife fight. The drip drip drip seems deliberate. The leaking comes from very high up, whoever it is.

Gretchen said...


DTjr met with a Russian lawyer for oppo research, and got nothing.

One more time, Obama knew about Russian meddling and did nothing. Nothing. He was in power.

Hillary and Obama used the NSA and FBI to conduct opposition research on Trump and colluded with the media and DNC to defeat Bernie and try to defeat Trump.

What is the big story again?

Mike Sylwester said...

The website Consortium News has been doing great reporting about 1) Russiagate and 2) the sarin-bombing hoax in Syria.

In regard to the Veselnitskaya meeting in Trump Tower, where she wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act, Consortium News provides interesting information about the Magnitsky Act in an article titled "Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump", written by Robert Parry.

Following are excerpts:

[quote]

... According to Trump Jr.’s account, Veselnitskaya then turned the conversation to ... the so-called Magnitsky Act, a 2012 punitive law passed by the U.S. Congress in retaliation for the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian jail.

The death became a Western cause célèbre with Magnitsky, the accountant for hedge-fund executive William Browder, hailed as a martyr in the cause of whistleblowing against a profoundly corrupt Russian government. After Magnitsky’s death from a heart attack, Browder claimed that his “lawyer” Magnitsky had been tortured and murdered to cover up official complicity in a $230 million tax-fraud scheme involving companies ostensibly under Browder’s control.

Because of Browder’s wealth and political influence, he succeeded in getting the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress to buy into his narrative and move to punish the presumed villains in the tax fraud and in Magnitsky’s death. The U.S.-enacted Magnitsky Act in 2012 was an opening salvo in what has become a new Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

[end quote; to be continued]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/forgetting-the-dirty-dossier-on-trump/

Josephbleau said...

Hohoho we have Fredoom of the Press! So we are immune from these attacks on our duly elected government.

n.n said...

Hillary and Obama used the NSA and FBI to conduct opposition research on Trump and colluded with the media

and the post-coup d'etat government in Kiev. When you frame Trumpgate that way, it bears a remarkable resemblance to Watergate. It's no wonder WaPo is concerned about revealing methods and motives used to compel Nixon's resignation.

Mike Sylwester said...

Continuing my comment at 11:49 PM.

Robert Parry at Consortium News continues to explain the Magnitsky Act.

[quote]

.... The Magnitsky narrative has now become so engrained in Western geopolitical mythology that the storyline apparently can no longer be questioned or challenged. The New York Times reports Browder’s narrative as flat fact, and The Washington Post took pleasure in denouncing a 2016 documentary that turned Browder’s version of events on its head.

The documentary, entitled The Magnitsky Act. Behind the Scenes, was essentially blocked for distribution in the West, with the European Parliament pulling the plug on its planned premiere in Brussels shortly before it was scheduled for showing.

When the documentary got a single showing at the Newseum in Washington, a Washington Post editorial branded the documentary Russian “agit-prop.”

The Post sought to discredit the filmmaker, Andrei Nekrasov, without addressing his avalanche of documented examples of Browder’s misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using “facts highly selectively” and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin’s “campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act.”

The Post concluded smugly: “The film won’t grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky’s family.

“We don’t worry that Mr. Nekrasov’s film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions.”

Given the fact that virtually no one in the West was allowed to see the film, the Post’s gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.

What the Post didn’t want you to know was that Nekrasov started off his project with the goal of producing a docu-drama that accepted Browder’s self-serving narrative. However, during the research, Nekrasov uncovered evidence that revealed that Magnitsky was neither a “lawyer” nor a whistleblower; that the scam involving Browder’s companies had been exposed by a woman employee; and that Magnitsky, an accountant for Browder, was arrested as a conspirator in the fraud.

As the documentary unfolds, you see Nekrasov struggling with his dilemma as Browder grows increasingly abusive toward his erstwhile ally. Nekrasov painfully concludes that Browder had deceived him. ....

[end quote]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/forgetting-the-dirty-dossier-on-trump/

Mike Sylwester said...

The reason why Crimea seceded from Ukraine and why the Donbass has been trying to secede is that Viktor Yanukovych, who was fairly elected President of Ukraine in 2009, was overthrown in 2014.

Yanukovych won the 2009 election by running on a pro-Russia platform. He put together a coalition of 1) ethnic Russians and 2) ethnic Ukrainians who preferred to improve relations with Russia. The consensus of international observers was that Yanokovych won the election fairly.

However, in the city of Kiev -- one city in the huge country of Ukraine -- street demonstrations, which continued for years, made Yanukovych's governance impossible.

The demonstrations were encouraged, guided and supported by the Obama Administration, which strove to overthrow Yanukovych's fairly elected Presidency.

Paul Manafort worked for Yanukovych, the fairly elected President of Ukraine. Manafort never worked for Vladimir Putin or for Russia or for any Russian entities.

The above are important considerations to keep in mind as the Russiagate controversy continues to develop.

Mike Sylwester said...

Here's an interesting article about a meeting between Rob Goldstone and Kathy Griffin.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/kathy-griffin-reveals-photo-her-030436878.html

Yancey Ward said...

The question has been asked- who leaked the e-mails to the NYTimes? The simplest answer is that someone at the special counsel's office leaked them, or someone in Congress did. I am guessing that by this point all of the private e-mails of Trump's closest advisors have been subpoenaed and collected by Mueller. It is possible the Trumps leaked them preemptively, but that makes far less sense to me.

And I will say it again- unless someone can show that dirt on Clinton was passed at this meeting, it is a nothingburger once again. Without actual info being transmitted at the meeting, it is extremely unlikely that the meeting itself was any attempt at all to influence the election, and far more likely to be either lobbyist trying anything she could to get a meeting with Trump and/or his top advisors, or, less likely but plausible a honeypot carefully placed in front of Trump Jr. and Kushner. However, if the meeting really was over in 20 minutes and is accurately detailed by Trump Jr.'s interviews today, there is literally nothing there.

Yancey Ward said...

And it is a fair question to ask about the Russian lawyer's relationship with Obama's ambassador to Russia. I don't imagine seats immediately behind an official testifying before Congress are open seats to anyone. Someone really does need to do a full investigative story on this lawyer. I mean, I could have asked far better and pertinent questions than she got from NBC today.

Yancey Ward said...

It would be interesting to find out what evidence was used in the FISA application that was turned down last Summer.

While I don't think it likely that Trump Jr. was setup, it isn't implausible, and it doesn't even have to be Democrats who did it either. In June of 2016, there was still greatly animated Republican opponents of Trump Sr. who wanted to dump him at the convention. You have to remember the Piss dossier had its origins with Republicans, not Democrats.

Matthew Sablan said...

Oh, and Donald Trump Jr. still had gotten a call from the 1980s and given them back their foreign policy. He hadn't gotten the call from 2017 that Russia was our #1 geopolitical foe.

And Mitt Romney smiles.

Matthew Sablan said...

After seeing that the lawyer was chummy with Obama's team, I'm thinking Goldstone or her are the leakers, hence the reason once Goldstone was found out to have lied in his public statements, he happened to stop appearing in news stories. They probably gave the emails to some third party, a la Comey, to claim clean hands.

rhhardin said...


It's an audience based mania. The ratings will keep it going until the right zinger is found to make it ridiculous within the mania itself.

Matthew Sablan said...

So, honest question for the people who are on board this Russia conspiracy.

At what point did they go from being afforded more flexibility and being our ally, per Obama's smug laugh line during the debates, to being our #1 enemy of freedom? I mean, the only inciting incident I see is Hillary Clinton losing an election after Russian tampering, something they've been doing for generations, sometimes at the behest of big name Democrats like Ted Kennedy.

So, is it just that Russia gored the wrong ox this time, or were the left somehow... unaware of Russian meddling until just then?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Should-a wiped the meeting from his calendar. You know, like with a cloth.

What difference, at this point, does it make??

Browndog said...

Matthew Sablan said...

If you could refine the "Russian tampering/meddling" point, that would be great.

C Stanley said...

An interesting exchange:

-Graham: Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey: I know the name.
Graham: Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey: I can’t say.
Graham: Do you agree with me that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey: I don’t want to say.

C Stanley said...

While I don't think it likely that Trump Jr. was setup, it isn't implausible, and it doesn't even have to be Democrats who did it either. In June of 2016, there was still greatly animated Republican opponents of Trump Sr. who wanted to dump him at the convention. You have to remember the Piss dossier had its origins with Republicans, not Democrats.

No, that's not a quite accurate. Fusion GPS did some oppo research on behalf of a GOP client (probably a super PAC) but the Steele dossier started once Democrat donors hired them in June.

MikeR said...

Sandy Koufax said that he used to train the umpires, moving the strike zone over to the outside corners, little by little in the course of the game.
Somehow the media has trained us in the last few months to think about meeting with Russians as potentially treasonous. Last year this would not have been news at all, or interesting at all.

Jersey Fled said...

Another interesting tidbit per Powerline Blog:

The Russian lawyer was in the U.S. on a temporary visa which expired in January 2016. The meeting with DJTJR occurred in NYC in July of 2016.

In other words, she was in the U.S. illegally at the time of the meeting.

Sam said...

Wwww 7/11/17, 11:34 PM

Agree, Kushner as the source, at least of the emails that caused Don jr to prophylactically (not particularly 'transparently,' come on people) tweet out his copies.

Although I love the idea that this was essentially a spearphishing operation to insert plausible code words that would trigger 'legal' monitoring etc.

As far as the whataboutist line: look at all these Dems meeting with Russkis! that is just silly. Of course it is normal for people in public life and in office to meet with all kinds of furriners. I'd argue that there is a truly special case surrounding Trump:

1. funny smell: for a guy who was so clearly America-first, undiplomatic, etc., he'd always change tune when it came to Russia, Putin, etc. "you don't think we have killers?" etc.

Then:

2. Smoke: everybody consistently "forgetting" and lying about Russia, even under oath, when they can get in big trouble. From Flynn on. This is really the red flag.

But is there any

3. Fire? From (a) the dem fever dream of a pee tape Manchurian candidate, to (b) some sordid little business fuckup by an underling or a beloved child, all the way to (z) no fire at all, just Trump having a COMPLETELY RATIONAL desire to try to stay friendly with the folks who have the most nukes pointed in our direction?

Who can tell at this point? But if you think (z), which certainly accounts for (1) (odor), why would we see so much (2) (smoke/lying about Russia)? I'd really like to hear a convincing theory for this case. I mean, really! I dislike trump but I'd prefer a wee smoldering electrical fire to a big underground tire fire. It's my country this is all happening in, after all. My kids have to live here after it's all over!

Michael K said...

Hillary, Poedsta, and Mook didn't formulate the Russia Lie until the day after she lost the election, according to that imbed reporter whose book was just published.

I think there is a Clinton connection to Azerbaijan that is being covered up.

I suspect the DJT Jr meeting was a setup but it was too close to home for Hillary to use it.

The Deep State is in this up to its fangs.

DHunter said...

Trump Jr. was and is a political naif who did himself a lot of good with his honest, forthright appearance on Hannity. I doubt he read much of that email past the part about someone wanting to give him dirt on Hillary, and the Russian part meant nothing to him at the time because his focus was on that dirt.

That said, the optics of this has given the DemocRats and their media handmaidens weeks worth of screaming and gnashing of teeth. In the end, though, Trump isn't going to resign and nobody is going to jail over it.

Yancey Ward said...

I still the big story might be the FISA applications that have been claimed were first filed in June of 2016. If the e-mail chain were part of that application, it would be a bombshell since one might be able to figure how it ended up in the application- in other words, how did the FBI obtain it would become important. It is definitely a curious coincidence in timing that someone with press resources should be investigating. Add to that some of the information about the Russian lawyer that is slowly coming to light- and the other connections to Azerbaijan, while needing more solid corroboration, and it does look increasingly likely that Trump Jr. was set up right from the start, and just to support such a FISA application.

One of two things has to be true here- either dirt was passed to Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort, or it wasn't. Right now, all the evidence suggests it wasn't. If it wasn't, you have to ask, "Why not?" There are two explanations if no dirt was passed: (1) The lawyer and her employers simply wanted a meeting to lobby for their bugaboo about the Magnitsky Act, or (2) it was a setup. As others have pointed out, the first explanation doesn't make a lot of sense since misrepresentation on this level kind of defeats the purpose of obtaining the meeting. The second makes more sense, in either a Veritas-like operation, or if the goal was simply to create a pretext for something else, like a FISA application. Someone with the authority could open up these applications, and should, whether or not my theory is correct.

Sam said...

Yes, Yancey 10:55, I agree that the scenario as we understand it militates against my scenario (a), call it the Full Manchurian. Whether it speaks of Dem trickery or Russians casting a wide net to ensnare vulnerable peripheral figures, i dont think we can know yet.

Can we?