I didn’t refuse to look at it. I looked at it enough to appreciate that it was partisan tripe, and stopped at that point.
No.
OK. What’s your point? Has anyone claimed the dossier was found to be false?
There’s an enormous amount of material there. The specific standard that that needs to meet is that it shows something significant in the dossier which was not previously known but was subsequently shown to be true. I’m not looking through that mass of info to find something which meets that standard. Anyone thinks there’s something there can look through it themselves and point to something they claim backs them up. I’m not responding to vague “somewhere in there is the proof that I’m right” claims, and don’t intend to respond further to posters who can’t appreciate this simple issue.
:smack: Of course! Because who better to evaluate Hillary’s “fitness” than the Russians? Especially her “fitness” as weighed against the [del]unimpeach[/del]… errrr… patently obvious qualifications of her opponent?
I think “evaluate her fitness” is just another way to say “get dirt on her”. It’s not like Trump Jr was having a hard time deciding who to vote for and expected this meeting to help him make up his mind. So nothing changed there. Question remains whether that’s collusion. (Problem for him there is the reference to the Russian gov in the email he was sent.)
The other problem is that he says that he intended to talk to his lawyers about the meeting before he used any of the information, indicating that he knew it was a problem and can’t feign innocence.
The other other problem is the reference to “donations” and “RNC” that so far has not been explained. And, by not having offered us any explanations to-date where those keywords would make any sense, there’s no way that we can reasonably believe anything presented to us now even if it is entirely fair that they don’t remember every word that was said in the meeting and shouldn’t be expected to.
But reasonably, according to them, the conversation only covered two things:
Dirt on Hillary, where she might have been receiving funding or information from Russia.
Adoptions.
I can’t think of any way in which either of those two conversations would dovetail into conversation of the RNC nor donations, that would be above-board.
Had a bad feeling about this guy, considering how he came to the attention of Trump as a nominee. Guess he took the loyalty pledge. Dirty, dirty, dirty.
Or Trump hasn’t tried to interfere. Benjamin Wittes from Lawfare supported the guy, so I’d want to see more than this to start complaining about him.
And, realistically, if the guy tried to yank the agents who are on the case off, or tell them to slow down, or curtail their spending, or anything at this point, I think it fair to assume that it would last for a total of five seconds before being restored.
I would argue that the new FBI guy should look at his job title as evidence that Trump has interfered in the investigation. Why is there a “new” FBI guy again?
“The notes do not contain the word “donor,” as NBC News previously reported, but they appear to explain the background of a key player involved in the [Magnitsky] act, these people said, and this person’s previous donations to the Republican National Committee.”
So - the notes say that one of the key players involved in the US Congress passing of sanctions on Russia donated to RNC. Is that “above board” enough for you?
Buzzfeedhas a document that early in the Trump administration, Putin sought complete normalization of relations with the US. A reset that would ignore all of the election tampering and Ukraine invading stuff. Apparently the meeting schedule was ambitious and optimistic that the Trump administration would be on their side for some reason.