We don't get a text of the email, but 3 people knowledge of an email. How does the NYT know they have knowledge? Instead of a quote from the email, we're only told what it "indicates." I'm supposed to accept an inference about the text that I can't see, an inference presented by the NYT, which I have seen trying to keep the Russia-did-it story alive.
How does the email "indicate[] that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information"? Vaguely, explicitly, in a manner that a reader can only understand with additional information?
Are we deprived of the text of the email because the NYT doesn't have the text? I have to guess that it does not. If not, is it because the "three people" were themselves paraphrasing and making representation about what the text "indicates"? Since the NYT (and presumably the "three people") are — I think — motivated to destroy Trump, I don't trust their paraphrasings. The word "indicates" seems chosen to insulate the NYT from accusations of distortion or exaggeration if the text materializes.
But I assume there is an email that Don Jr. got from Goldstone, because Don Jr's lawyer, Alan Futerfas, said "Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia."
If I read the linked article correctly, Futerfas said Don Jr. got the email trying to set up a meeting about HC's dealings with Russia, and then the NYT came up with the 3 people with knowledge of an indication that Goldstone's email notified Don Jr. that the info about HC came from the Russian government and even — to quote the first paragraph at the NYT — "was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy."
That must mean that Don Jr. has the email, and he ought to be able to produce the text. The NYT knew that when it wrote about what the email "indicates." So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions.
ADDED: The bottom half of the NYT article gets the story from Goldstone, who says that Emin Agalarov (a Russian pop star and son of a man who worked with Don Jr's father to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Russia) asked him to set up a meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya was said to have "information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C." according to Goldstone, who says he "never, never ever" knew Veselnitskaya had any connection to the Russian government.
Goldstone said Veselnitskaya only had “just a vague, generic statement about the campaign’s funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn’t donate... It was the most inane nonsense I’ve ever heard... And I was actually feeling agitated by it. Had I, you know, actually taken up what is a huge amount of their busy time with this nonsense?”
I don't know if Goldstone accurately portrays what Veselnitskaya said, but I'm wondering how that story connects to the central question of the extent to which the Russian government was actually involved in the American election. If Veselnitskaya were acting for the Russian government and the Russian government were really trying to swing the election to Trump, why didn't she have something substantial to deliver?
AND: Veselnitskaya speaks: "I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that."
UPDATE: A new piece at the NYT offers some of the actual text:
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
343 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 343 of 343It matters what evidence the players have seen and the reports are it's some interesting stuff.
With all due respect, that's a pretty vague response.
You are stuck on Trump = MAGA.
No, I merely pointed out to you that the central sentence in the whole article, the very meat of it, mentions Hillary Clinton and the Russians, which you were not able to see due to your partisan blindness.
Thanks to our dear comrade LLR for this bit of comic relief:
Don't make basic boneheaded errors that would cause NPR producers and editors to laugh you out of the room.
Yes, yes; NPR's thought police are the arbiters of my analytic standards. I always hold my breath to see if they approve of my opinions. If not: oh, the shame, the horror!
Guess what. The room that "NPR producers and editors" would laugh me out of is in their very own version of Lubyanka, and you don't get out of there on a whim.
The lefty trolls seem to be switching IDs.
I would like to remind everyone that Obama was illegally accepting campaign donations from foreign donors by accepting donations via credit card and turning off the functionality that would have verified the location of the donor.
Of course no one is interested in this violation of campaign law and probably federal criminal law.
Chuck is very impressed with the Russian language expert who gets kicked off Politico for anti-Trump obscenities.
Interesting morning.
NPR thinks Trump's joke about Putin finding Hillary's 30,000 deleted e-mails = Collusion! Proof!
"Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia.". - New York Times
So the Russians were going to rat themselves out?
Dems and their enablers in the press are overplaying their hand. I blame Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein making every reporter think they can topple the state.
Well the email is out. Judge for yourselves. Not that judgment is the strong point for the Trump = MAGA crowd, in my opinion.
The emails:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341443-trump-jr-releases-email-chain-on-conversations-with-russian-sources
Regards,
Ken
Donald Trump, Jr. knuckles under to pressure from Ann Althouse.
If you believe Hillary was colluding with the Russians, you people are truly insane. Putin hated Hillary. How much more disinformation and destabilization of our government by Russia and its useful American idiots will you Trumpists tolerate?
The mail is out, and it sure looks like the Russian Government didn't come through on their side of the "collusion." It looks a lot more like the meeting was a bait and switch to talk about adoption in light of the sanctions, and none of the "Russian Government" side of it was actually real.
I guess they can bring up Trump Jr on charges of "attempted collusion."
If you believe Hillary was colluding with the Russians, you people are truly insane.
You explain why Putin cronies gave her tens of millions of dollars then.
You explain why Putin wants lower oil prices then.
I'm all ears.
If Donald Jr. thinks he can divert attention from him meeting with a Russian agent by incriminating Clinton, he is dumber than his father.
Russia hated Hillary so much, they considered every dollar of the millions they gave her a punch. A strong punch. Take that, they said.
How much more disinformation and destabilization of our government by Russia and its useful American idiots will you Trumpists tolerate?
How much more abuse of the Patriot Act will you tolerate?
I always suspected you people were dumb, now I know it.
Chelsea?
What is it, Ma?
Can I have a Salerno Butter Cookie?
Chelsea?
What is it, Ma?
Fuck the cookie and bring me a beer.
So someone promises information about Hillary and her connections to Russian money - Trump Jr bites. (NOT ILLEGAL!)
Turns this woman used that to lure the suckers in and instead wanted to talk about adoption.
Crime of the century#
How dare anyone do any opposition research against queen Hillary!
Did Diaper Don just shit the bed?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.10cb24a96c02
Et tu, WaPo? Even you have stories of Clinton's pay for play, as documented in emails, of which she deleted 30K, pay, tens of millions of which came from the Russians?
Et Tu, NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
I guess they are insane too!
Good God it is hard to make even the simplest of factual points in the Trump Fever Swamps.
My point earlier this morning is that whatever you might think of Julia Ioffe's opinions, she comes from the status of a real Russia expert, and she is not "NPR." She is not an NPR reporter, or commentator. She does not work for NPR. She was asked to do an interview, and share her views. That is all. I didn't even offer any opinion of my own on the matter. I just corrected the record.
I gotta hand it to Trumpville; the fanaticism, the victimhood, the rage, the single-minded determination to support The Donald despite any and all facts to the contrary; it's damned impressive. Like a kind of "White Lives Matter."
Hitlary is a crook too is a weak excuse. In any event, the guilt or innocence in this matter will be evaluated by Mueller. These press reports and Donnie Jr's stinking load of emails are all out of context... tho it looks like he is throwing his BIL under a subway train
Took a quick glance at the emails, and my initial reaction is that DJT Jr looks like an idiot.
I asked upthread what would be wrong with taking a meeting ostensibly to learn about your opponents collusion with Russia.
Brookzene said, "blackmail" which is a fair enough point, and which is why politics is usually done with layers of underlings to buffer the campaign leaders.
In this case he wasn't blackmailed, but probably was set up. And along with my earlier observation that it was naive of him to think he was going to get anything out of this meeting, it was also extremely dumb to leave a paper trail that included discussion of this woman being a "Russian government lawyer" and of an acquaintance boasting of the Kremlin's support for DJT.
It's not that anything illegal took place, but plenty of fodder for opponents to claim intent. And the worst part is that the stupidity of falling for this will take all of the oxygen out of the room for looking at the real underlying dirt between the Democrats and GPS Fusion.
Go talk to your girlfriend, Chuck
She's probably having an orgasm now.
You can force an association with that.
@ Quaestor
The poor of Mexico are much poorer in comparison to America's poor and especially in relation to the most wealthy. In spite of their poverty the lower class in America own things the poor of Mexico cannot afford, such as automobiles, smartphones, cable television, and refrigerators. Poverty in America often means lack of access to luxury items and vacation travel rather than the desperation that drives many Mexicans and Central Americans to make the hazardous journey over the northern border and across the arid wastes of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Texas. Why is that? How come an oil-rich country like Mexico does not have a social safety net in place to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty? The answer is they do, and it is the cheapest system imaginable whereby the wealthy of Mexico are not taxed to provide the safety net. The Mexican social safety net is called the United States of America, and it is paid for largely by the poor living north of the Rio Grande who suffer unemployment because their labor is priced out of the market by cheap imports — a familiar story to American manufacturers who have lost their livelihoods to imported goods, but not so familiar to American workers who are losing their livelihoods by reason of another kind of import.
Bingo! Boom and 100%
Why would Russia hate Hillary? It was apparently no typo that instead of "reset" on the famous button, it actually said "overcharge."
When billionaire kleptocrat Putin saw that, he probably laughed and said "Here is a woman we can deal with."
Imagine what Colbert would have said if Trump had done that instead of giving the story a good leaving alone...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/world/europe/07diplo.html
Are we now in agreement that the New York Times' anonymous sources who were characterizing the emails without quoting them, got it all right?
Are there any more complaints about the anonymous sources in this case?
I guess I thought this was how opposition research was always done.
CStanley: Didn't the DNC just pick up GPS Fusion's contract on Donald from the GOP? If anything, the MAGA morons should be bleating DEEP STATE
I am glad Jr. posted the emails, whatever the motivation. We can all read them and develop our own opinion of them. This is a good thing, and I think the fair-minded public will appreciate the transparency.
I do not think there is anything illegal in the communications, but I definitely cringed. I suspect that if we had unfettered access to all candidates' oppo research communications we would have a much better context for these. Without that, Trump and his team are very vulnerable to the prevailing spin.
Ugh. I reluctantly voted for Trump. None of this is good for America, but the absolute hatestorm from the lefty media has made me pull for him way more than I ever thought I would.
Like I've said for a while, I don't believe this will end well for our country.
There is zero evidence in the email chain about ACTUAL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT involvement, BTW. Doesn't it take two to collude?
If you read the e-mail chain - there is no crime.
To proggy leftists, merely discussing Hillary's economic ties to Russia - IS A CRIME!
You shall not discuss the CLINTON CRIME FAMILY, OR OPEN YOUR EYES TO ANY CLINTON DEALS, OR DISCUSS ANY CLINTON BIG MONEY DEALS OR even THINK ABOUT IT ANY RUSSIAN-MONEY FLOW TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
It is a crime to discuss poor Hillary.
"The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If the future president’s elder son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a "Russian government attorney.”
Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers."
NYT
Are we now in agreement that the New York Times' anonymous sources who were characterizing the emails without quoting them, got it all right?
Can you show me the part about actual RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT?
Jr Sample, you need to wipe that spooge off your chin.
Was the attorney a "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY" and did she actually give Trump Jr any actual dirt on Hillary?
Jr Sample, you need to wipe that spooge off your chin.
Best you got? Sad.
Hillary, I have some dirt on the Donald.
Oh, Yeah?
Yeah.
So what is it?
He voted for you. Baba Booey.
That's not funny!
Darcy said...
I am glad Jr. posted the emails, whatever the motivation. We can all read them and develop our own opinion of them. This is a good thing, and I think the fair-minded public will appreciate the transparency.
I do not think there is anything illegal in the communications, but I definitely cringed. I suspect that if we had unfettered access to all candidates' oppo research communications we would have a much better context for these. Without that, Trump and his team are very vulnerable to the prevailing spin.
Ugh. I reluctantly voted for Trump. None of this is good for America, but the absolute hatestorm from the lefty media has made me pull for him way more than I ever thought I would.
Like I've said for a while, I don't believe this will end well for our country.
I agree 100%
What do we think the dossier email chain looked like?
What do we think the communications looked like when Obama managed to get two divorce records unsealed?
Unknown
you left off this important part:
"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with [Agalarov’s] father Aras this morning and their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia would be very useful to your father,” reads one of the emails from Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr.
LOL!!!
The first comment for this post:
Mattman26 said...
"Dear Junior, we here at the Russian government want to help your dad beat Hillary, and we have some juicy info to share. Can we meet?"
I bet that's what it doesn't say.
To be sure, the email wasn't from "the Russian government." It was from another guy, who wrote that essentially "the Russian government want[s] to help your dad beat Hillary, and [it has] some juicy info to share. Can we meet?"
And now, we ask the guy who wrote that email, about exactly why he wrote it and who he was in contact with before writing it.
Looks like he was a "buffa." Yeah, right Senatuh, a "buffa." The Corleone family had a lot o' "buffas."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK9OgXRDXxs
Of course, trump Jr. is free to release the email.
@Chuck 10:16 Sorry, I am not a big fan of the Seymour Hersch school of reporting which relies on anonymous sources and, perhaps, imaginary sources. How is one to know whether the NYT, WSJ or anyone else is reliable if they don't name sources so others can confirm their reporting? In science I believe it's called a "reproducible experiment".
That Trump took advantage of the ridiculously low editorial standards on sourcing just underscores what I am saying. If you aren't man enough to stand behind a statement you make then you should not make it. GIGO.
Just fightin fire with fire, Jr Simple
In this case he wasn't blackmailed, but probably was set up.
He sure could have been set up by the Russians. Why in God's name would Trump &
Co. embrace the Russians?
I'm reminded of something I read in Solzhenitsyn, not sure where but to the effect of explaining the Russian disaster of June 1941, "the one person who Stalin turned to who he understood, the only person he could trust...Adolf Hitler."
Someone called the media and said - "We have some footage of Trump saying "Grab em' by the pussy".
Is this illegal?
Just want to say, I agree with Lazlo #russiafatigue
Again, if you believe Hillary was colluding with the Russians you are insane. They HATED Hillary.
Althouse's Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome is now nearly a co-author of the blog, having sufficient agent and control of its own.
Khesanh: Then you must discount all intelligence that comes from anonymous sources. In engineering, we call it proprietary information and don't want competitors to reproduce it.
did she actually give Trump Jr any actual dirt on Hillary?
You need to understand: this. doesn't. matter.
The hack press will pick and choose the quotes out of the e-mails and ignore the part where "Clinton's economic ties to Russia" are concerned.
Blogger Unknown said..."I always suspected you people were dumb, now I know it."
What? You're not new here?
Brook - Please educate the class on the illegality of speaking with someone who promises to provide proof that hillary made money off Russian deals?
Git a grip, UKnown. Hillary would get into bed with anybody to win and the shit she was pulling at State was vile. You sound just like a small-handed MAGA spunk receptacle.
If you read the e-mail chain - there is no crime.
Shame on you. You can't even tell right from wrong unless someone points out the statue to you.
1) If Russia had legally obtained information that was damaging to Clinton, is there any legal reason that The Trump campaign should have refused accept and use it?
2) If Russia had a legally obtained copy of the Entertainment Tonight tape of Trump, is there any legal reason that the Clinton campaign should have refused to accept and use it?
Blogger Howard said...
CStanley: Didn't the DNC just pick up GPS Fusion's contract on Donald from the GOP? If anything, the MAGA morons should be bleating DEEP STATE
Yes, HRC campaign began bankrolling GPS Fusion when Trump got the GOP nomination.
Shortly before this meeting was set up in June with a lawyer who has done work for them,
Same month that one of the cofounders of GPS Fusion, Peter Fristsch, bought a $2.5 million dollar house in Bethesda MD.
All probably coincidental though.
He sure could have been set up by the Russians. Why in God's name would Trump &
Co. embrace the Russians?
Because the Great Russian Scare had not yet started.
We were still in the reset/more flexibility phase of the relationship.
Unknown - Red Herring.
Hillary wasn't colluding with Russians, she was merely profiting from her secret deals with Russia.
Ever read this?
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Hillary--Satan's on Line 1. He says he's got dirt on Trump.
Put him through!
CStanley: Thanks, it makes the subject meet with Russian attorney sound like a possible setup. My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump was always a deep state target to kill GOP populism after they killed Dem populism by stealing the nomination from Bernie. People will be begging for a return to command and control of the government-media complex.
Here is my summary of the e-mails:
Goldstone told Trump Jr. that one of his client's father, an actual Russian official, had damaging information on Clinton and that it would be relayed via an intermediary.
At the actual meeting with the intermediary, she had nothing of the kind, and wanted the meeting for some other purpose.
On balance, this sounds like a bait and switch operation to get Trump Jr. or, more likely, his father to take the meeting in the first place.
I think Trump Jr. was probably foolish for even believing such information was going to be given to him, if it even existed which I doubt, but there is nothing illegal or even unethical in taking the meeting to see if it pans out. There isn't a presidential campaign ever run in this country that wouldn't try to secure and verify such information if it were being offered, and it really doesn't matter who is offering it. However, it appears that there was never any such information actually on offer.
In total, it looks like Trump Jr. fell for a bait and switch.
If the Russian Collusion Theorists want this story to have legs, they will have to demonstrate that information on Clinton was passed in this meeting, but no one has done that, or even actually suggested it- all the stories seem to indicate the meeting contained exactly what the Russian lawyer and Trump Jr. said it did, even the NYTimes.
So, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to prove that Hillary was colluding with Russia?! Hahahahahahaha, Jesus. Ya can't make this stuff up.
@Howard 11:13 Not sure that I understand your comment, but I do and always will discount any information from an anonymous source. Proprietary information is just the opposite of anonymous information. As you say you can build a business on proprietary information - a lot of people have. Would you risk trying to build a business based on anonymous information. No? Neither would I.
We are getting fucked from both sides, film at eleven
If Putin hates the Clintons - an assumption I don't necessarily believe - but if so, is it perhaps because they are competition in the big game of corruption and money?
Besides, in a mob run country as Russia is, who *isn't* connected to the "government", who is allowed to do anything?
Brook - shame on me? that's your proggy answer.
Lame. Typical.
Tell us the crime committed?
How is it a crime to want to know how Hillary profited from the Russians?
Dammit, this actual evidence of collusion is ruining a perfectly good fake new story.
"..this actual evidence of collusion.."
Lol
Anonymous is secret, just like actionable intell that resulted in OBL getting waxed. You then brought up science, which didn't make any sense because it's academic, eg not practical. In engineering, we keep stuff secret, including suppliers of specific widgets and chemicals and don't look for reproducible results by others... and yet, people buy the shit because it works, not because it followed arbitrary rules of gentlemanly conduct.
How is gathering opposition research A CRIME?
Is this Citizens United all over again where the left lie and say "it's dark money" but in reality it's the left's attempt to shut down free speech when that speech is anti-Hillary?
So, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to prove that Hillary was colluding with Russia?
Where is Putin's Russia in this?
Ya can't make this stuff up.
Apparently you can. It doesn't matter that there was no dirt, it doesn't matter that it wasn't the real Russian government involved, what matters is that if you spin it hard enough, throw up enough chaff, that it can be made to look like what you said.
You can't even tell right from wrong unless someone points out the statue to you.
Well, yeah, I would like to see the "statue," as a matter of fact.
Dammit, this actual evidence of collusion is ruining a perfectly good fake new story.
Collusion with fake Russians? {Not sent by Putin, not under Russian Gov't directive}
Chuck at 11:09, I will give you that; my attempt at sarcasm (and atop the thread, no less) was remarkably close to the reality. I am glad that I have brought you some joy this day; you seem like you need it.
So someone told someone, who told Junior, that (a) an emissary had evidence to incriminate Hillary regarding her dealings with Russia; and (b) that the Russian government "support[ed]" Trump's campaign. And Junior said (in essence), "Sounds great, I'll meet her."
Perhaps this makes Junior look gullible (although saying "Let's meet" doesn't necessarily mean he's buying what she's selling). And by all accounts (for the time being, at least) it looks like all of this led nowhere.
It is mighty difficult to fathom why the Russian government would prefer Trump; U.S. energy policy would figure to be one of Putin's greatest vulnerabilities, and Hillary would seem highly preferable on that score. Perhaps less difficult to see why the Trumps would be susceptible to believing that the Russians could favor him.
If I were involved in a campaign and someone told me that someone else had evidence to incriminate the opposing candidate, I'm pretty sure I'd hear them out, even if the source was the Russkies, or the Iranians, or whomever. As anyone who's read Clinton Cash would know, there was at least some basis for suspecting that Hillary had engaged in illegal or unethical activity vis-a-vis the Russians.
Dammit, this actual evidence of collusion is ruining a perfectly good fake new story.
It takes two to collude, I am pretty sure. Still short of your flush there Lefty.
Khesanh: did you guys actually call your own location as a target just like Dale Dye did in Platoon? Was Dye in Khe Sanh?
If the Russian Collusion Theorists want this story to have legs, they will have to demonstrate that information on Clinton was passed in this meeting
I don't know if a crime was committed or not but I do know in many circumstances you don't have to actually go through with a crime to be charged with a conspiracy to commit one.
It takes two to collude, I am pretty sure. Still short of your flush there Lefty.
They obviously took the bait.
Brookzene: "I don't know if a crime was committed or not..."
Lol
I do.
Note it is only Goldstone declaring that the Russian government wanted to help Trump.
This isn't proof- it is an assertion from a third party, and a hearsay assertion at that.
Again, what is missing here is actual evidence that the original claim by Goldstone, that there was sensitive information to pass along, is true. Since nothing like this ever surfaced in the campaign, one has to assume the information promised actually never existed- it was lure to get the meeting for another purpose. I believe Trump Jr. when he and others claim the Russian lawyer and her intermediaries misrepresented themselves and the purpose of the meeting.
"If Putin hates the Clintons - an assumption I don't necessarily believe - but if so, is it perhaps because they are competition in the big game of corruption and money?"
Eric Trump said that they get a great deal of funding out of Russia.
--------------------------
"Three years ago, now-President Donald Trump invited golf reporter and author James Dodson to see his new golf course to play a round and talk, as Dodson recounted to WBUR on Sunday.
There, Trump reportedly bragged to Dodson that he had access to $100 million to fund his renovations — which Dodson said struck him as odd, given that banks were leery of lending during the great recession. He then asked Eric Trump, his golf partner about it, as he recounted.
As we were setting off, I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years.’ And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’ Now that was three years ago, so it was pretty interesting.”"
Brookzene: "They obviously took the bait."
Lol
What bait?
They obviously took the bait.
Still don't have Putin's web of cronies in on this yet, it looks like political neophyte Trump Jr got played for a bait and switch, that you have.
Yancey: "..what is missing here is actual evidence.."
Shhhh.
The lefties and Lifelong republicans are on a roll.
Was it over when Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?
Lol
What bait?
Hey, "LOL Drago" is back.
Blogger Dave from Minnesota said...
"During the campaign, Donald Trump Jr. was frequently dispatched to gun-loving and flag-waving areas in red states, while Ivanka was sent to woo suburbanites."
Rather clever, in my view. Not that I really see much allure by Ivanka in much of suburbia. Urban, very much so. Big city girl, with big city ways. Always beautiful, well coiffed, in heels. Something they aspire to in NYC and Hollywood, but not that much elsewhere. And, her conversion to Judaism doesn't help her in much of suburbia - many Jews remain stubbornly urban, as contrasted to their otherwise demographic peers. But, then, they also remain stubbornly Democrats, despite the stark differences between the support the two parties give to the Jewish state Israel.
I view Ivanka politically as more the Chelsea Clinton foil, much brighter and better looking, more poised and articulate, but similarly married to a Jew, but one whose family made their money the hard way (like Trump), instead of by scamming (like the Clintons). Doesn't hurt that Ivanka's husband was her father's political brain, while the Clintons had to pull strings to keep their son-in-law from being indicted for fraud.
We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’ Now that was three years ago, so it was pretty interesting.”
Were we at war with Russia? Is it that odd that a billionaire would have access to money from outside the US?
Where is Tailgunner Inga on this, BTW?
Drago's right. Shitting the bed is not a crime.
The battle tempo always reaches maximum intensity right before it collapses, similar to the fake dossier and the 348 other "smoking gun" non-smoking gun claims we have witnessed.
It was just 2 weeks ago that Trump had "jumped the shark".
It was mere months ago that p****hats were ubiquitous.
It has always been thus.
Yancy Ward @ 11:21.
Excellent.
The left insist a crime was committed. They just cannot point to an actual statute that was violated.
Lol
What bait
From the email: Lol
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."
THAT bait.
I wonder how many Yuuge favors Trump did for them, besides, you know, paying back the money. Favors like locking up North American uranium supplies for them, or killing pipelines that competed with GazProm. Yeah, that same GazProm in which Podesta somehow managed to end up with 75,000 shares.
Russia is supplying the Taliban and the Iranian terrorists, so yes, the US is fighting a proxy war against the KGB
THAT bait.
Not from the actual Russian Govt directed by Putin, but that's a minor detail. It only takes one to "collude"! Not that oppo research is somehow illegal.
"combat veteran" Howard: "Drago's right. Shitting the bed is not a crime"
Which "rack" has been shat upon.
Try to be precise.
Lol
Brookzene,
What is described in the e-mails isn't a crime- full stop. If it were, whoever trafficked in the Piss Dossier after its creation also committed the same "crime". It isn't even unethical to take meetings with people who come to you offering damaging information about your opponents. This is why the actual meeting details are critical here, and right now there is literally no reason to disbelieve Trump Jr.'s account of it- he expected campaign dirt and quickly realized he had been tricked into meeting with the Russian lawyer who had another agenda. You really have to prove that is a lie, or there is nothing here but another nothingburger.
The left are working backwards from the Podesta-Hillary butt-hurt loss conspiracy that Trump and Poot colluded to crush her. All while she made money off the Russians behind the curtain.
Poor Podesta - the evil political money whore vampire FUCKING LOST!!!!
CStanley: Thanks, it makes the subject meet with Russian attorney sound like a possible setup. My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump was always a deep state target to kill GOP populism after they killed Dem populism by stealing the nomination from Bernie. People will be begging for a return to command and control of the government-media complex.
Well my working theory involves the Obama administration spying and heir asses off on the Trump campaign, and then they and HRC come up with the "Putin colluding with Trump" ruse to cover their tracks. If and when the Senate investigations delve into the sudden escalation in unmasking requests, I've no doubt this will be the cover story (that they had probable cause, basically.)
So some seeds needed to be planted.
I think it was on Daily Caller I saw a timeline, showing that the DNC knew about the hacking for a few months before it was made public. The timeline made note that this meeting took place during that time period...before Trump's team would have had any reason to have suspicions raised concerning Russian meddling in the election.
Russia is supplying the Taliban and the Iranian terrorists, so yes, the US is fighting a proxy war against the KGB
"The 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back" - BHO
"We can show more flexibility after the election." - BHO to Russia.
Howard: "Russia is supplying the Taliban and the Iranian terrorists, so yes, the US is fighting a proxy war against the KGB"
Lol
Is that why obambi defended the Russuans, gave to he Russians 20% of our uranium reserves, obambi released billions to the Iranians and cut a deal which expedites irans nuke weapons development and Hillary and bill received millions from Russians?
Hilarious.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."
Again Brookzene - name the crime here.
CStanley: "If and when the Senate investigations delve into the sudden escalation in unmasking requests, I've no doubt this will be the cover story (that they had probable cause, basically.)"
Indeed.
This smoke is necessary to cover up massive domestic spying in us citizens of which "would be silver star" awardee Howard approves.
It was the old "badger game" and Trump Jr got ensnared. But it wasn't collusion in any sense of the term with Putin's Russia.
And let me make it clearer with an apt example- The NYTimes reporters take meetings all the time from people offering damaging information on public figures. That is also not a crime, wouldn't you agree?
Yancey Ward, does it have to be a crime, for it to be anything more than a "nothingburger"?
I expect that your answer is in the affirmative. That the Trump Administration now feels so embattled, so victimized by the media and the deep state that only criminal indictments matter at this point. Otherwise, fuck 'em.
And my presumption is that response is what divides the 30% or so of the electorate who are devoted Trump supporters (the Fifth Avenue shooting witnesses) from the 70% who think this is some crazy shit.
Does Chuck still hand out paper towels in the washroom at GOP events in Michigan?
The common thread seems to be Ukraine. Why did the DNC/Clinton go from colluding with Russian interests to backing a violent coup in Kiev that deposed the democratically elected government?
The NYT seems desperate to protect the details of the DNC/Urkrainian axis, as they did with Libya, Syria, Somalia, etc. And then there are the millions in foreign-sourced contributions to the Obama campaign.
This is bigger than the Fannie/Freddie/redistributive debt debacle that caused the "great recession", ushering Obama into office, who created a vacuum in the Middle East, followed by global elective wars and forcing refugee crises.
Badger, badger, badger . . .
It's a snake! It's a snake!
Darrell said...
Does Chuck still hand out paper towels in the washroom at GOP events in Michigan?
COMMENTS ARE MODERATED some but not all of the time. This is for the purpose of excluding/removing a small handful of commenters who, I believe, intend to ruin this forum. They already know who they are. For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks.
And let me make it clearer with an apt example- The NYTimes reporters take meetings all the time from people offering damaging information on public figures. That is also not a crime, wouldn't you agree?
I'm pretty sure they run this by their lawyers. What do you think the Trump campaign lawyers advised when these guys went to meet a Russian agent about getting help to beat Hillary? I'm guessing the lawyers weren't even asked, hmmm?
Yes, Chuck, it does. This e-mail chain isn't proof of collusion. All it proves is that the Trump campaign was actively looking for dirt on Clinton, a true blockbuster story if I have ever seen one. It isn't even proof that the Russian government was looking to aid Trump- there isn't a single proven connection to the Russian government in this story- it is all hearsay evidence, and if the meeting didn't include dirt from a Russian government official, and it appears it did not, then what do you have here? It appears for all the world that Trump Jr. got hoodwinked into taking a meeting he otherwise wouldn't have bothered taking.
This is why the missing ingredient here is critical- you need to show that there was actual dirt passed at this meeting, and even if you did that- it wouldn't be a crime, but it would at least be evidence that someone in the Russian government was trying to aid Trump, but that is is what is missing here.
Jr Sample and Drago: Obammy did it too, so there!
Brookzene wrote:
I'm pretty sure they run this by their lawyers.
No, what they run by their lawyers is what the paper prints- the reporters are free to meet with and take information from any source they like- if this weren't true, reporters and the paper wouldn't have anything to discuss with the lawyers in the first place- right?
What's the matter, Chuck? Are you trying to say you are ruining the Althouse blog? I agree with you, but it is up to Althouse to kick you out.
Darrell: Do still get into trouble with your "wide stance" in the boys room.
Your three-hour back-and-forth about NPR commentators was really entertaining. I would hate to miss shit like that.
"@Chuck 10:16 Sorry, I am not a big fan of the Seymour Hersch school of reporting which relies on anonymous sources and, perhaps, imaginary sources. How is one to know whether the NYT, WSJ or anyone else is reliable if they don't name sources so others can confirm their reporting? In science I believe it's called a "reproducible experiment". "
I would add to this that while the NYT may have had decent vetting and fact checking in the past, sufficient to impress people like Chuck, I have seen little evidence that that is still the case. Remember, this is the same paper that is currently being sued for defamation by Palin for an article that the paper constructively provably knew to be false about her essentially causing the Tucson attack on Rep Gifford, etc al. Even some liberal legal scholars believe that this could be the rare case where actual malice can be proven. And, it wasn't a single columnist, but the editorial board that published it. I would suggest that whatever credibility that the paper gained over the years for objective accurate journalism has been tossed out the window in recent years, subordinated to the task of destroying Republicans in general, and Trump in particular. Would they lie about their anonymous sources? Maybe not in the past, but now? They lied about Palin, the political has-been - why wouldn't they lie about Trump, their primary enemy?
Carlos Slim likely doesn't have voting control over the paper (remember the voting preferred stock retained by the Sulzbergers?), but his money is probably all that keeps the paper afloat, so he likely has almost as much editorial control, as if he actually owned the company. And this trend is worrisome, with unaccountable mega-billionaires controlling major media outlets, and using them (and in the case of legacy papers, their long term, hard earned, credibility) to control the national dialog and protect themselves and their fortunes.
If you have had to deal with salespeople as part of your job, then you will understand that people lie sometimes to get a foot in the door, even if the only purpose is buy you lunch and make themselves known to you. Bait and switch is an old game.
Howard is a homophobe. Sad.
col·lude
kəˈlo͞od
verb
come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.
So to believe this is collusion, you have to be of the opinion that exposing illegal activity by Hillary Clinton is harmful.
You might be surprised to learn that I disagree with that definition of harmful.
Craig said...
Althouse's Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome is now nearly a co-author of the blog, having sufficient agent and control of its own.
7/11/17, 11:12 AM
You mean to say you don't like it?
Probably why Howard didn't enlist. Sad.
The email sounds closer to what the anonymous sources claimed than I would have thought, given their previous inaccuracies.
It still looks like nothing happened at the meeting, and that the lawyer for Jr. explained it accurately. Someone said that Russia had information, and Trump Jr. took the meeting, nothing came out of it, and they left.
Didn't information in The Dossier supposedly come from Russian government sources?
Yancey Ward said...
Yes, Chuck, it does. This e-mail chain isn't proof of collusion. All it proves is that the Trump campaign was actively looking for dirt on Clinton, a true blockbuster story if I have ever seen one. It isn't even proof that the Russian government was looking to aid Trump- there isn't a single proven connection to the Russian government in this story- it is all hearsay evidence, and if the meeting didn't include dirt from a Russian government official, and it appears it did not, then what do you have here? It appears for all the world that Trump Jr. got hoodwinked into taking a meeting he otherwise wouldn't have bothered taking.
This is why the missing ingredient here is critical- you need to show that there was actual dirt passed at this meeting, and even if you did that- it wouldn't be a crime, but it would at least be evidence that someone in the Russian government was trying to aid Trump, but that is is what is missing here.
7/11/17, 11:57 AM
Being a supporter of the Administration, nonetheless I will say this. A specious analogy may be made to a drug deal. DTjr is the guy catering a party, a party at which the appearance of weed would not go amiss. Goldstone is his cuz who knows a girl, who is evidently an officially sworn badged Cartel Drug Moll named Veselnitskaya, who has rubbed up against him with promises of a pound of Acapulco Gold for $50 an ounce. Goldstone passes it on, DJ says Hmm, let's meet up and smell it.
Goldstone sets up the meet. Schnitzelskaya, who is a freelance nobody with no connections to Acapulco or anywhere else, dances around for three minutes with a bag of oregano, then launches into an Amway pitch, whence Goldstone smacks himself upside the head and they all leave.
Question: what just happened?
Question: when the Narco boys bust you, does it work better if the baggies they exchanged for your hard earned dollars are filled with catnip or with hydro? How about if you don't take any baggies or give any money?
...
Conclusion: Next time be more careful, Don. Send it to some flunky with a cryptic Subject like "Does this require any attention?"
And if the promisers talk like a stooge, treat them like a stooge.
It's interesting that the Leftists want to claim gaining access to even illegally obtained information (even if the source is admitted for the sake of argument) is somehow a crime.
Is that what the Pentagon Papers case held? Were all those WaPo and NYT reporters thrown into jail for publishing government documents?
I know we're supposed to accept that Donald Trump, Jr is a terrible guy for even wanting to help his father win an election. Fine, I'll pretend to believe that too.
But are we rewriting four decades worth of Supreme Court precedent to get there?
Bad Lieutenant:
Specifically, send it to the lawyers with a "Does this require special attention?" line.
BL,
Trump Jr. behaved foolishly here, but, as you seem to realize, your analogy fails because the purpose of the meeting, from Jr.'s point of view, isn't to commit a crime- taking a meeting from people who offer you dirt on a political opponent isn't a crime. If it were, every single presidential campaign ever run in this country broke that law- every single one.
Now, if the offer of dirt specifically mentioned it was obtained by illegal methods, then that is a different issue, but the e-mail chain makes it explicit that this wasn't the case.
Trump Jr. behaved foolishly here, but, as you seem to realize, your analogy fails because the purpose of the meeting, from Jr.'s point of view, isn't to commit a crime- taking a meeting from people who offer you dirt on a political opponent isn't a crime.
The argument seems to be is taking a meeting from foreign agents, or from people who you think are foreign agents who offer you dirt on a political opponent a crime? Of course there are lots of people you can take meetings from. Are there some you can't? Did Don Jr. run into one you can't?
Birkel said...
...
Is that what the Pentagon Papers case held? Were all those WaPo and NYT reporters thrown into jail for publishing government documents?
The Pentagon Papers case is really interesting in this context.
What the Pentagon Papers showed, was a whole lot of bad communication and even wrongdoing within the Defense Department, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, SecDef McNamara, the CIA, and others.
And not any serious wrongdoing by Richard M. Nixon.
And yet Nixon got himself into some trouble by obsessing over the Times, and the Post, and Ellsberg. When the substance of the Pentagon Papers weren't much aimed at him at all.
Sound familiar? Roy Cohn should see this.
Yancey Ward,
The Pentagon Papers case stands in opposition to the point that information obtained by illegal methods cannot be printed the NYT. If it can be stolen and printed in the NYT you'll have one hell of a hard time convincing anybody who knows anything that the NYT broke a law receiving the stolen documents in the first place.
I assume you know this.
Thank for focusing on the politics you wish were true instead of the point of the case law. Your absence of good faith is, once again, noted.
If prior restraint cannot stop the NYT from receiving and printing the information in illegally obtained documents and could only be punished after the fact - of which none was forthcoming for reasons that are obvious - then it is hard to develop an argument that meeting to obtain such evidence is itself illegal.
Brookzene wrote:
"The argument seems to be is taking a meeting from foreign agents, or from people who you think are foreign agents who offer you dirt on a political opponent a crime? Of course there are lots of people you can take meetings from. Are there some you can't? Did Don Jr. run into one you can't?"
No, it isn't a crime to take the meeting in this case- from the e-mail chain, the worst that Trump Jr. could have had is a suspicion that the lawyer was Russian government agent, but the e-mail clearly implies that she is just an intermediary between "emin's" father and Trump Jr. This is the main reason I think Trump Jr. was foolish- the potential payoff isn't really worth the bad optics politically.
There is a reason the Piss Dossier was not published during the campaign- bad optics. If dirt was passed to Trump Jr., I doubt the campaign would have found it useful anyway, so why even take the meeting- foolishness and/or naivete is my explanation.
insulate the NYT from accusations of distortion or exaggeration if the text materializes
This is typical of phishing efforts. The NYT did something similar by publishing a close association between an attempted abortion and electoral roadmap. The DNC does this when they frame opposition to their "solutions" as "throwing granny of the cliff", while redistributing several hundred billion from Medicare to create an illusion of viability.
Birkel, I know that, but I am focusing on the meeting itself, not the information exchanged since, to date, it appears the offer was bogus from the start.
I wouldn't take a meeting in Trump Jr.'s position if the offer claimed that it came from an illegal cloning of Clinton's phone. It may well be the case that taking the meeting isn't illegal, but then it does start to breach the ethical line in my opinion. Of course, I wouldn't have taken the meeting at all given the lack of support for the offer itself, but that is just me since I tend to be skeptical of too good to be true offers.
Birkel said...
Bad Lieutenant:
Specifically, send it to the lawyers with a "Does this require special attention?" line.
7/11/17, 12:28 PM
OK...then what happens? Is someone a sufficient distance down the chain allowed to look into exploiting this? Is it allowed to (seek to) exploit such an opportunity? If there was actionable intelligence, somehow seems silly to leave it on the floor.
BL,
In most professional organizations a reference to legal gives the actors a "good faith reliance on advice of counsel" defense if there were some underlying legal issues. To date, there appears to be no evidence that such an underlying issue exists. But as Yancey Ward states above, this appears to be a case of naivete.
Chuck said...
I gotta hand it to Trumpville; the fanaticism, the victimhood, the rage, the single-minded determination to support The Donald despite any and all facts to the contrary; it's damned impressive. Like a kind of "White Lives Matter.
What facts? I've seen nothing but smoke and mirrors.
But as Yancey Ward states above, this appears to be a case of naivete.
Yes, which is not criminal but it is naïveté on such a level that it shouldn't be defended.
Post a Comment