There's been a lot of smoke regarding the Trump campaign and Russia. This weekend, a print newspaper — but not the Washington Post, surprisingly — found news on Donald Trump Jr. At first glance, I didn't get all that excited about the story. But the story has gained traction and then some after Trump Jr. tweeted (naturally).
So what happened?
Two days after his dad clinched the Republican nomination, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia LONGLASTNAME. Trump Jr. was told before the meeting that this is "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Further, he was told the information would "incriminate" Hillary. Trump Jr.'s response was "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." In short: He believed this was a meeting with a Russian government source to get dirt on his father's political opponent.
What has the New York Times actually reported and how has Trump Jr. responded?
Day 1) Kushner and Manafort disclosed on federal forms a meeting with this Russian lawyer, Natalia LONGLASTNAME, at the request/because of Trump Jr. Trump Jr. said that they had only talked about adoptions (see a few questions down about the Magnitsky Act).
Day 2) The Times reported that while they may have ended up talking about adoptions, the original purpose of the meeting was to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian contact. Trump Jr. responded with a quote that was something like "well, dirt on Hillary was the point, but this Russian lawyer didn't have anything, so we just talked about adoptions." This is Trump Jr.'s second version of the story.
Day 3) The New York Times was preparing to release the actual contents of the email when Trump Jr.'s team asked for more time to respond. During that waiting period, Trump Jr. tweeted out the email chain, which is... damaging. Trump Jr. claims his "transparency" shows he did nothing wrong.
Why is it damaging?
Trump Jr. was directly informed and involved in a conversation about what he thought was the Russian government's support of his father's campaign. He wanted the information and wanted to use it to hurt his father's political opponent. The email chain also shows he was told that Natalia LONGLASTNAME was a "Russian government lawyer", whether that was true or not. He sought material provided by a foreign government to hurt his political rival. That's... pretty much conspiracy to collude.
Did he collude?
There's a decent legal case that actual collusion didn't happen. (Conspiracy to collude isn't an actual crime, but may run afoul of other crimes).
What do you mean? Didn't this Russian lawyer have any dirt on Clinton?
Probably not. We don't know exactly what happened in the meeting, but the explanation from both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer herself was that she talked mostly about the Magnitsky Act and kind of touched on some negative info to the DNC. She told NBC News that she had some potentially damaging information related to the DNC: a business that she claimed hadn't paid taxes in either Russia or the U.S. and had possibly donated to the DNC. When she didn't have any documentation to back it up, Trump Jr. moved on. So actual collusion probably didn't happen, but Trump Jr. seemed open to collude at the very least.
RELATED SIDEBAR: The Magnitsky Act has been mentioned a few times. What's the Magnitsky Act and why does it matter?
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who investigated/revealed fraud by Russian tax officials in 2009. It was a big scandal, so of course Magnitsky was the one arrested and taken to Russian prison. He spent a year there, getting sicker and sicker (gall stones, pancreatitis, etc.: all very treatable, but painful) to the point of human rights violations. Eventually he was taken to a hospitable, where he died after being beaten to death by a Russian secret police officer.
In response, the U.S. under the Obama administration passed a law banning about four dozen Russian human rights violators from banking in the U.S. or visiting the country. Putin was upset about this law, and has basically shut down American adoptions of Russian children, banned some U.S. officials in retaliation and posthumously found Magnitsky guilty of various crimes.
It's important because it was one of the sanctions/sources of tension between Russia and the U.S. under Obama. The Magnitsky Act has led to some other Russian tension/U.S. prosecution as some of the Russian human rights violators sought to hide their American-based assets to avoid the Act.
Back to the recent news: Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia LONGLASTNAME talked about the Magnitsky Act... so what?
First of all, the Russian lawyer Trump Jr. et al met with is basically the world's foremost anti-Magnitsky Act person. She's fought it on every level both in her country and others, including helping to make a documentary last year "revealing" that Magnitsky was guilty and evil and mean and presumably hates puppies that she gave to one of the Russian TV stations that serve as Putin outlets. Basically, she's been the tip of the sword on fighting the Magnitsky Act.
So she's working for the Russian government?
Maybe? That's hard to say. She denies being directly linked to the Kremlin, but she's got some links to high-ranking Russian oligarchs. U.S. intelligence has long said the Russian government likes to use people who aren't directly working for it (outside lawyers, journalists, etc.) as advocates so the Kremlin has deniability in cases like this and so the advocate appears more credible. Some have directly called her a Russian agent in the past, though. You could make a plausible case either way, honestly. But here's what's important: the guy who set up the meeting sent Trump Jr. an email beforehand that said she had damaging information about the DNC and that it came from the Russian government to help his father's campaign. He further described her as a "Russian government lawyer."
So Donald Trump Jr. was told he was getting damaging information from a Russian government source to help damage his father's political opponent?
Yes.
Did he?
Probably/maybe not, although about a month later, 1) references to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression were removed from the GOP platform at the Trump campaign's request and 2) a few days later, WikiLeaks reveals the DNC emails, which U.S. intelligence says came from Russian sources with the intent to damage the Clinton campaign and 3) Trump Jr. was on CNN denying a Hillary Clinton accusation that the Trump campaign was being boosted by the Russians. Maybe those things were not connected to this meeting. Maybe they were a result of the Russians finding fertile soil with the Trump campaign based on their receptiveness to this meeting. We don't have enough details right now.
What should we make of all this?
Well, first of all, I don't think this is THE MEETING in capital letters in which collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia took place. However, there was an intent/willingness on the part of Trump Jr. (and Manafort and Kushner, to a lesser degree) to work with a foreign power to gather information that could damage their political opponent. Everything after the parenthetical in that sentence is kind of the definition of collusion. So while this meeting probably/maybe wasn't collusion itself, it showed that the Trump campaign had the intent to collude. Further, these are probably the three highest ranking folks of the campaign at the time -- Trump can't logically claim they weren't acting on his behalf, and he can't disown his son or son-in-law. He's already issued a statement supporting his son. But you know it's bad when even Fox News has it plastered all over their website with seemingly little defense... but two days later, they seem to be spinning this into pointing the finger at the Obama administration.
What's been the reaction?
This should be the end of Donald Trump Jr. Hell, it should be the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. It should be more important than it seems to be already. I've heard some token anger from Democrats, but this should be a full-throated yell. People on Facebook seem upset, but not active/engaged/involved like they were for travel ban/Obamacare repeal/other things. I guess everyone is waiting for Mueller to tell us this is bad, illegal and awful. It appears few people have the conviction and courage to know what is right and wrong until we have a respected third party tell us. So we'll all wait a few years to find out that this is wrong and have outrage then, I guess.
Wrap it up with a metaphor or hypothetical so we can get on with our day.
Tim was told he could have sex with a minor if he showed up to a certain meeting. Tim expressed joy about the meeting despite being warned of its danger. When Tim got to the meeting, there was no child and he left disappointed. Did Tim directly commit an illegal act? No. But he certainly planned to, which is just as bad. But everyone is waiting for Tim to actually be charged before we decide if he's bad or not.
Summary Judgments
In two years, Republican opinions about colleges and universities have dramatically changed. As of 2015, GOP poll respondents supported colleges and universities by about a 55-36 margin. The 2017 version of the same poll found those numbers have switched: 36 percent of GOP poll respondents support colleges and universities, and 55 percent believe they have a negative impact on society. Poll results don't show why things change, just that they have. This is a change that needs to be closely watched and analyzed. • • • It's hard to get the Internet in rural places. Soon, Microsoft may be able to send the Internet to rural places using unused TV channels. It's pretty cool, but it could mean that after a set-up fee ($1,000 now, $200 in coming years), you could pay about the same as a cable bill for Internet in places you can't get cable Internet. Cool innovation, Microsoft. • • • That picture of Amelia Earhart supposedly on a Japanese island is... not what it was cracked up to be. It was disproven in about 30 minutes by a Japanese military blogger. The picture is not from 1939 (after her disappearance in 1937), but probably from late 1920s/early 1930s. In fact, the photo was published in a book in 1935. So... yeah. She almost certainly died on a desert island. • • • I ended up taking the week off of running after last week's 4 on the Fourth. I ran once on Tuesday, but only 2 miles because it was super hot. I'll run one more time this week, probably up to 3 miles. I'm going to slowly up the number of miles between now and Sept. 10, because I have two months to learn to run an extra two miles. Basically I have a lot of training to do, and I spent the first week being lazy. Good luck, me. • • • Evie had a rough first few days of the week, with accidents and lots of discipline at day care. Wednesday, we had a little discussion, and at the end of it, she told me, unprompted, that she loved me. She's not as affectionate as Roland, and doesn't say those words often. So that warmed my heart instantly and has filled my heart for the rest of the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment