The mainstream media and all their progressive allies are currently in a tizzy, claiming that President Trump now “admits” that his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign was to gather “information” about Hillary Clinton. Oh, my gosh! They’ve got him now.
What the President tweeted is at this link. It’s always worthwhile to go directly to the President’s feed because many times the media misreport (fake news!) that President Trump said one thing or another when, in actuality, all he did was to link to or to quote what someone else said.
In this case, contrary to the headline cited above, the President did not admit that the meeting was to “get dirt” on Clinton. He said “information,” and he rightly pointed out that it’s not a crime and everybody does it. But …
OMG! They’ve got him now:
But the tweet also served as an admission that the Trump team had not been forthright when Donald Trump Jr. issued a statement in July 2017 saying that the meeting had been primarily about the adoption of Russian children.
Well, no. That’s also fake news. In truth, the meeting “had been primarily about the adoption of Russian children!”
What the Russian lawyer promised to pass on to the President’s son about Clinton (or led another Russian working with a British-born go-between believe that she or yet another Russian had promised to pass on) is indeed not what she delivered.
She did not give anyone at the meeting any information about Clinton, dirt or not. This is according to transcripts of sworn interviews as reported in the media.
Consider this spin, this stretch, published in the mainstream media:
But legal experts have pointed out several possible criminal charges, including conspiracy against the United States and aiding and abetting a conspiracy. Federal campaign finance law makes it illegal for a campaign to accept a “thing of value,” such as a financial contribution, from foreign nationals. Opposition research could be counted by investigators as a “thing of value,” experts have said.
Opposition research — collecting information on an opponent — is not illegal and is a common practice in political campaigns.
But “willfully soliciting a foreign contribution is a crime,” Rick Hasen, a campaign finance expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in an email Monday. “You have to know you are doing something illegal and the courts would have to consider the opposition research from Russian agents a “thing of value” for campaign finance purposes.”
Oh, yeah. A lot of ifs in there.
If if were a skiff, we could all go sailing.
The bottom line is, whether or not mere information, dirt, or opposition research comprises an illegal campaign contribution, the fact remains that nothing was passed to the Trump campaign in that meeting, anyway.
But, but, but! Oh, wait. But Donald Trump Jr. thought he was going to get dirt, so it was a case of “willfully soliciting a foreign contribution.”
Or maybe it was conspiracy to willfully solicit a foreign contribution.
If someone offers something to you, did you “willfully solicit” it?
What if they offer but don’t deliver and later say they never offered?
If wishes were fishes, progressives could eat well tonight; that is, unless they’re vegans.
But I digress.
Now consider this gem:
On April 10, 2017, an assistant to Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee … patched in a long-planned call from Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. Parubiy said he had some potentially explosive information about Trump’s visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
“I would just caution that our Russian friends may be listening to the conversation, so I wouldn’t share anything over the phone that you don’t want them to hear,” Schiff warned.
But Parubiy persisted. “In November 2013, Mr. Trump visited Moscow, he visited competition Miss Universe, and there he met with Russian journalist and celebrity Ksenia Sobchak,” he said in his heavily accented, awkward English. He explained that in addition to having ties to Putin, Sobchak is “also known as a person who provides girls for escort for oligarchs. And she met with Trump and she brought him one Russian girl, celebrity Olga Buzova.” Schiff soberly asked for clarification, and Parubiy answered directly: Sobchak, he said, is a “special agent of Russian secret service.”
Buzova “got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations,” Parubiy said. “There were pictures of naked Trump.”
Schiff betrayed no emotion. “And so Putin was made aware of the availability of the compromising material?” he asked.
“Yes, of course,” Parubiy said. Putin wanted it communicated to Trump that “all those compromising materials will never be released if Trump will cancel all Russian sanctions.” The biggest bombshell: He had obtained a recording of Buzova and Sobchak talking about the kompromat while the two were visiting Ukraine. He told Schiff, “We are ready to provide [those materials] to FBI.” …
“All righty. Good, this is very helpful. I appreciate it,” Schiff said. He told Parubiy that the U.S. would welcome the chance to review the evidence he had described. “We will try to work with the FBI to figure out, along with your staff, how we can obtain copies.”
Schiff was right to be concerned about “our Russian friends” listening in, though not in the way he imagined. It wasn’t Parubiy who’d called. It was Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, two Russian pranksters known as Vovan and Lexus. …
But wait! Here we have a case of a Democrat accepting dirt on a political opponent from a foreign national, albeit via telephone.
The Democrat didn’t want to discuss the dirt over the phone, but the foreigner did indeed share dirt with Schiff about Donald Trump, even if he wasn’t the foreign national Schiff expected and even though the dirt wasn’t true.
Untrue, just like the Trump dossier that Hillary Clinton via her law firm paid a foreign national to write–a foreigner who was simultaneously working for Obama’s FBI–who wrote it after he willfully solicited dirt on Trump from multiple other foreigners, who happened to be Russians!
Did the foreign national pay those Russians (where’s the proof?) or was the information a donation or a gift to Clinton’s campaign? If he paid them, with whose money, the FBI’s (in other words our money) or Clinton’s? If Clinton’s, then might she or her campaign have been involved in a “conspiracy against the United States” or is she perhaps only guilty of “aiding and abetting?”
Anyway, true or not, it was dirt and Schiff accepted it by listening to it. Therefore, he was willing to accept it, even if he didn’t solicit it.
Oh, but wait a minute, a progressive might say. Schiff said he’d refer this to the FBI. Doesn’t that show how upright he is? No.
First of all, the Russian pretending to be a Ukrainian offered to give it to the FBI.
Secondly, Schiff’s office sent an email referring to the call as “productive” and asking when the information could be picked up, so obviously Schiff didn’t immediately call the FBI. Why wouldn’t he simply turn the issue over to the FBI and allow their investigators to obtain and deal with the information?
Consider: What’s the difference between these two scenarios, other than that Schiff did hear dirt from a foreigner about President Trump, but Donald Trump Jr. did not hear any dirt from a foreigner about Hillary Clinton?
Donald Trump Jr. also said that if any evidence had been given to him that incriminated Clinton in a crime, he would have passed it to the FBI. Since nothing was given to him, there was no reason to call the FBI.
Do you see why President Trump calls the mainstream media
Might we suspect that these theories reportedly from legal experts are leaks from a report that Mueller, like Comey, may have already written, long before this investigation cum witch hunt is even completed?
That’s sheer speculation, but it would be typical of the Deep State, it being so well-populated with Obama holdovers.