Don Jr. has been proven to have lied by his own words and the evidence we already have – both by omission and commission. Witness one impeached.
Veselnitskaya claimed that she gave Junior no info on Clinton. She also omitted the presence of Akhmetshin and possibly two more people. Oddly enough, both Russians are working to repeal an act that is very much against the interests of the Russian government. Both, of course, deny any connection to the government or intel services. Never heard of 'em. (Because lawyers and possible intel agents never lie about their connections.) Uh-huh.
Funny how that works out. Funnier how you’re so willing to believe all of them: a known liar and two Russians who have every motivation to lie about their possible connections.
First, we have at least one accounting where there was material exchanged.
Second, why would she go through all that trouble, call in those favors to emin, goldstone, and whomever else, to get a sit down with a nominee’s son? That sounds like a lot of big asks (don’t forget, this at a very busy part of the campaign) to get in a room with a long shot, just to pull a bait and switch. Didn’t she think that would piss them off instead of warming to the cause?
I, personally, think it is more likely the meeting was exactly as described in the email.
So, the part of the email where Goldstone explicitly stated this was part of the Russian government’s support of Trump, just flew over Trump Jr.'s head? Donnie Jr. said the Russian government wasn’t trying to help Trump. There’s an email where he’s expressly told that the Russians are supporting them.
Also, you’re relying on Donnie Jr. and associates telling the truth about this meeting, when throughout this entire saga they’ve lied (either directly or by omission) about it. Why do you think they got nothing (especially considering the suspicious timeline, which I’m sure you’ll just hand wave away) out of the meeting? Because they said so?
Which is based off he accounts with a vested interest in lying and who have already done so. I prefer to look at what we actually verifiably KNOW. From the emails, we know Trump Jr. thought he was meeting with a Russian government attorney, in conjunction with Russia supporting Trump, who was going to give him dirt on Hillary. You may be willing to believe people with a penchant for lying, but I’m going to try to be a little more discerning.
Would someone kindly provide a link or series of links to the thread(s) where it is established that it’s perfectly okay for a foreign government to help a candidate’s campaign in any capacity?
(Disclaimer: I just want to know the reason for this comment, I will not engage in a long debate about it one way or the other. Expansion will get a thanks.)
Okrahoma, there’s one point I keep getting hung up on, and I think you do, too, from the other side of the argument:
I don’t want to suggest that I’m speaking for you, so please correct me if I get it wrong.
You seem to be saying that, since Junior wasn’t able to acquire any damaging info on Clinton, that there was, essentially, no harm/no foul.
Am I correct on that?
Because whether he got dirt on her is immaterial. He believed that he would. His intent was to acquire harmful info. That’s more important than if he actually succeeded in his attempt.
Your certainty is hilarious. The law is still looking into this matter. We probably won’t have all the answers for months, if not more, and yet you are so certain right now that everything is just perfectly fine.
The right thing to do would’ve obviously been to inform the FBI of the offer and work with them to uncover both what the Russians did and potential criminal misdeeds of Hillary.
When an adversary government offers to support you, you tell the authorities.
Same old arguments. Nothing to see here, but even if there is, it’s not illegal.
So just stop wasting time and taxpayer dollars on investigating it. We need to be concerned about more important things like invading voters’ privacy to gain Republican advantage in future elections!
Well, the law is far from settled on this issue. But I thank you for answering my question succinctly and promptly.
Even if there’s no criminality in his actions, it doesn’t look good. A lot of times with situations like this, there doesn’t have to be an impropriety. There just has to be the appearance of impropriety. Much like the Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. Everyone on either side of that meeting looks shady.
Lynch herself said that the meeting was innocent, and they only discussed grandchildren and golf and other mundane things. But she also said that the email controversy didn’t come up, but she knew that people wouldn’t see it that way.
It’s not an exact parallel, but there are similarities. Did you (and I ask this respectfully) believe Lynch that the meeting was innocent, and didn’t involve discussion of the emails, or the investigation into Hillary? Or was it a case of those lying, scheming Clintons doing something underhanded?