Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia email scandal shakes the presidency, v3: Trump fixated on leakers

[Madmick]

Following the a scandal involving emails that showed possible collusion between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer-- a scandal that could potentially constitute serious crimes-- wherein he sought dirt in Hillary Clinton has shaken the Presidency, deeply, and fiercely reignited the public scrutiny of the Trump administration's conduct during the campaign while Mueller's FBI investigation quietly hums in the background. Previous thread versions here:
v2: Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia emails shake the presidency ***UPDATE: Gowdy Excoriates Trump***
v1: Don Jr., Kushner, and Manafort met with Kremlin lawyer in June: Don Jr. confirms meeting.


A bold Axios piece alleges that Trump's inner circle is furious with the leakers, and is entirely focused on that:
Inside the White House scramble on the Trump Jr. emails

Their main areas of focus: 1) Who leaked this? Who is the mole? 2) How do we deal with this?

Keep reading ... words
On the leaker:

• Many of our White House sources are playing amateur detective, some with whackier theories than others, and some of which turn on people within the White House. Suspicion spread between people who worked in campaign and in White House, and while no one we've spoken to has any evidence to support their theories, it's not stopping them from speculating.
• It's creating a very tense environment, and a number of administration officials can't believe the level of foolishness required for Don Jr. to not only do this but to have such a conversation over email.
• There's a lot of internal anger over who gave this information to the NYT, which cited three people with knowledge of the emails in its report last night.

On the pushback:

• There's an emerging strategy to turn this back around on the Democrats.
• An extreme example of this approach is Roger Stone, who texted Axios: "The president can turn the tables and dominate the dialogue by ordering the indictment of [James] Clapper, [John] Brennan, [Susan] Rice and [former president Barack] Obama for the wholesale unconstitutional surveillance of Americans... I would seriously arrest [and] perp walk every one of these criminals, making as big a show of it as possible."
• Although Stone is a longtime confidant of Trump, this in no way reflects the strategy preferred by current White House staffers. With that said, there are already internal conversations about turning this into a conversation about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the way they handled sensitive intelligence

That inside scoop would appear to be spot on because posted in the previous thread, and definitely worth review is how one of Trump's seniormost advisers, Corey Lewandowski, who formerly managed his campaign, where he gained infamy after physically assaulting a female reporter, then lying about it, has chosen to respond to this Trump Jr.s grossly immoral behavior (to apply the most favorable possibility). Are they showing contrition? Are they apologizing for the inappropriate contact? Have they offered anything?

Nope. They're threatening to root out the "leakers" and punish them for bringing this truth to account for the American people to consider. It's frightening stuff. These people appear to have little or no conscience:

Heads will roll after Trump Jr. leaks, Corey Lewandowski says

President Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski predicted Wednesday that the leakers driving coverage of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting last year with a Russian lawyer will be fired, as the White House reportedly scrambles to find the source or sources.

“Anybody, and I mean anybody who is not on the president’s agenda that works in this administration should absolutely be removed immediately,” Lewandowski told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning.

“I don’t know who the leaker is but let me tell you this, if it were up to me, and somebody was speaking to the media [and leaking information detrimental to Trump], I would fire them on the spot, and Donald Trump will do the same,” he added.

Numerous accounts in the wake of the Trump Jr. revelations have described the White House as racked by internal drama and suspicion. In seeming reference to such stories, the president tweeted Wednesday morning: “Remember, when you hear the words ‘sources say’ from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist.”

TRUMP TWEETS DEFENSE OF JR.

But there is little question the president’s inner circle would like to get to the bottom of the leaks.

The latest – and perhaps most serious – Russia-related controversy started when The New York Times began reporting on a meeting Donald Trump Jr., then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner had last summer with a Russian lawyer who apparently offered to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. on Tuesday ultimately published the emails he exchanged with the contact who set up the meeting -- music publicist Rob Goldstone. Those emails describe the offer of incriminating information on Clinton as part of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
In this June 5, 2017, file photo, Donald Trump Jr., executive vice president of The Trump Organization, announces that the family's company is launching a new hotel chain. (AP)

Trump Jr. responded that, "if it’s what you say I love it …”

According to the president’s eldest son, such information was never provided. Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged in an exclusive interview with Fox News' "Hannity" Tuesday night that he "probably would have done things a little differently."

TRUMP JR.: I WOULD HAVE DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY

"This [was] pre-Russia fever. This [was] pre-Russia mania," Trump Jr. told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "I don’t think my sirens went [off] or my antenna went up at this time because it wasn’t the issue that it’s been made out to be over the last nine months, ten months."

However, the president’s eldest son also described the meeting as "a nothing," adding, "I wouldn’t have even remembered it until you started scouring through this stuff. It was literally just a wasted 20 minutes, which was a shame."

Axios reports there’s considerable anger on the Trump team over who leaked the information to the Times in the first place.

Speculation is widespread over who may have provided the material and had a motive to do so. An earlier Times article described the sourcing as “three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”

According to the Times, Trump Jr. posted his emails on Twitter only after being told the newspaper was about to publish their contents.

As the Kremlin also reportedly is denying reaching out to a Moscow property developer to set up the meeting in question, Lewandowski told Fox News that the session was just a “courtesy meeting.”

Further, Lewandowski – who was still campaign manager at the time – said he “knew nothing about the meeting” because it “was a nothing meeting.”

“I think what this is is a giant distraction for the mainstream media about a story about nothing, and that is prohibiting the president from getting his agenda done,” he said.

Asked about the possibility of formally returning to the president’s team, Lewandowski said he likes his outside work now but would not rule out helping the president if he wants.

While Lewandowski and other Trump allies have sought to downplay the latest controversy, the contents of the emails have fueled bipartisan concerns about Trump associates’ contacts with Russia last year. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have indicated they’ll want to hear testimony from Trump Jr.

Trump defended his son on Twitter Wednesday morning.

“My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad!” he wrote.

There was a massive amount of controversy over whether what has already been revealed constitutes a crime in the previous thread versions. Resident mod and attorney @Zankou nixed the notion that the campaign finance reform theory is credible, at all, but there appears to be a wider berth of criminality than that.

Here's a tidy collation of some of the source material that was posted on this matter for your convenience. Authors of these articles include FBI agents and attorneys themselves. Decide for yourself:

Trump administration: There's no evidence of collusion. 12 legal experts: Yes, there is.

This is near-conclusive evidence of collusion and conspiracy

Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University
I think there are now legitimate charges that can be brought based upon conspiracy laws and campaign finance laws, but it would be a mistake to characterize any of this as a slam dunk for a couple of reasons. One, this is all unprecedented. What we're doing is reading statutes on the book and trying to find a link, but the way the legal system works is that you also have to look at case law, and anyone who says the statutes are 100 percent clear and the precedents are clear is not recognizing how unprecedented these events are. That these events are so unprecedented speaks to the gravity of what's happened here. We've never seen anything like this in the history of the republic.

Now, if you're asking what would make the case against Trump Jr. a slam dunk, I think it's that all of this is part of the broader Russia cover-up. That there were all these meetings that campaign officials refused to disclose now appears perfectly intentional. We know what they were hiding, and it's awfully damning.


Bob Bauer, law professor, New York University
These email exchanges clarify in no uncertain terms the Trump campaign's understanding that the Russian government was looking to provide support, and the campaign's expressed willingness to seek and accept it. The potential violations presented by these facts are the unlawful solicitation and acceptance of items of value from a foreign national. Also clear from these exchanges is that the campaign as an organization has this legal exposure, not only the individuals, including Donald Trump Jr., who arranged and participated in it. All of these individuals were acting on behalf of the organization, as its agents.

Investigations are complex, and the inquiry certainly will not stop with the disclosure of these emails. They do indicate the seriousness of the issues that have been raised, now that we have more and more evidence that the president, when calling openly for Russian support in locating emails stolen from Secretary Clinton, was not — as he later claimed — joking.

“We've never seen anything like this in the history of the republic”


Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia
At the least, the just-posted email string establishes: first, that Donald Trump Jr. arranged with a longtime colleague to meet someone he understood to be a “Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow,” following the colleague’s claim that “the Crown Prosecutor of Russia” had offered to provide anti-Clinton documents as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”; second, that Trump Jr. said “I love” the offer; and third, that Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort knew of the “Meeting” before it occurred.

The reference to “Meeting” is notably terse. The emails appear to have been cut and pasted, with some having forwarding arrows at the left margin, others not, so that it is not clear whether Trump Jr. forwarded the entire string to the other two. Nor do the emails tell what might have been said, or not said, in pre-meeting conversations among Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort.

In short, the posted emails in and of themselves do not constitute “slam dunk evidence” against all three men. But they surely loom large as links in a chain of adverse circumstantial evidence.


Paul Butler, law professor, Georgetown University
This is definitely compelling evidence of collusion, but collusion itself is not a crime. Potential crimes include conspiracy, if hacking emails was part of the plan. But the more likely charge would be soliciting a foreign national for a campaign contribution. The fact that Manafort and Kushner knew they were going to a meeting with a Russian and getting "support" for Trump's campaign gives them the same exposure that Trump Jr. has. The defense would be the typical Trump operative line — "we didn't know it was wrong" — but, especially for an experienced campaign old hand like Manafort, that defense is unpersuasive.

No public corruption case is ever a slam dunk, but this paper trail puts Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner in a precarious position.


Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Today’s newly released emails make it easier for a fact finder to infer that Manafort and Kushner joined an illicit conspiracy (e.g., agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a foreign national — and in this case, someone who appeared to be acting as an intermediary for a foreign adversary), although a good defense attorney could still find some wiggle room. Presumably these are not the last emails we will see, and as we see more evidence, we may find additional members of the Trump team who were aware of and encouraged this meeting.

A final point: given Mr. Manafort’s previous history advising political campaigns (not to mention the fact that he graduated from law school and was a highly successful lobbyist), it is inconceivable that he didn’t recognize the potentially fraught nature of Donald Trump Jr.’s contacts with Rob Goldstone [who arranged the meeting], as well as the meeting itself.

“The emails are clear evidence of intent that the campaign was prepared to ask for support from a foreign government”
Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
To the extent that President Trump's then-campaign chair, Paul Manafort, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, knew about the Russian government's desire to provide them with valuable information about Hillary Clinton that would help the campaign, this raises the prospect of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States.

I do not believe we know enough to say that this is a slam-dunk case.

We do know that federal law prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions (including things of value) from a foreign individual or entity. Given the revelations this morning, there is a strong case to show that Donald Trump Jr. did solicit information, which would be valuable to the campaign. And if Manafort and Kushner were part of this plan, as it now seems, that raises the serious specter of conspiracy.


Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
The emails are clear evidence of intent that the campaign was prepared to ask for support from a foreign government. Campaign finance rules are complex, but this rule is not: Any seasoned campaign professional would have called 1-800-FBI at the point someone suggested this. At the very least, the emails are sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to take the case to a grand jury to determine whether they violated campaign finance laws — you can't "solicit" from a foreign government for money or "anything of value."

Under the criminal law, solicit means asking, so if you ask someone to murder someone else, that is a crime even if no one is murdered. Similarly here, if you ask someone to violate the campaign finance laws, even if the do not come forth with anything, that is a crime.


Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan
This is beginning to look a lot like a criminal conspiracy. Nobody's guilty in this country until a jury is convinced by proof beyond a reasonable doubt — but you can be indicted on less evidence than this.


Brandon Garrett, law professor, University of Virginia
The portion of the email chain noting that this was a “Russian government attorney” suggests knowledge that they intended to get something from a foreign source and that it was in the nature of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”

The emails also provide evidence of intent to obtain something of value from a foreign individual or entity. And that thing of value does not just have to be a campaign donation to be illegal; it can be “anything of value.”

This is the type of smoking-gun evidence that prosecutors prize.


Joshua Dressler, law professor, Ohio State University
Today’s news means that Trump, Manafort, and Kushner sink or swim together. That is, the law treats them as if they were a single entity — if a crime has occurred, they are ALL guilty, equally. The question is what crime did they conspire to commit?

“Conspiracy” is a crime, but conspiracy to do something LAWFUL, of course, is not a crime. There must be an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act, along with some overt act committed by one of them in furtherance of the agreement. Going to the meeting clearly qualifies as an overt act. So the question becomes, what is that criminal offense that they conspired to commit? That is where I am not sufficiently familiar of the federal code to know what might fairly be charged. But they are equally guilty, if guilty. (Of course, this proves “collusion” — a slam dunk — but “conspiracy” is a term of legal art.)

It is theoretically possible that Manafort and Kushner would claim that although they KNEW of the Trump Jr./Russian intermediary plan (by means of that email), that they were opposed to proceeding. But if that is so, one would expect that they would not have joined Trump Jr. at the meeting. If they can point to some emails they sent Trump Jr. saying, “That is wrong” or “a bad idea,” or, “Hey, it’s a crime, don’t do it,” that could exculpate them. But without such evidence, their presence at the meeting is certainly something a prosecutor would use to say that they not only knew what was happening but were also in agreement with Trump Jr. to proceed, and thus they become co-conspirators.


Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
I think this changes the conversation completely. It’s now established that the campaign was aware of, and involved in, Russian attempts to meddle in the election. The only question now is whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement now appears answered (in the affirmative). For Donald Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner, the relevant legal category is conspiracy.

“This is the type of smoking-gun evidence that prosecutors prize”


Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University
It’s premature to state any conclusions about the legal consequences of the Veselnitskaya meeting, but with the release of an email chain on which both Manafort and Kushner were copied, its significance certainly grows. It strained credulity from the beginning to claim that a national campaign chairman would take a “blind” meeting with a foreign national like this. Now it’s clear that the offer of damaging information from a Russian government source was made in advance and forwarded to all participants.

When alleged crimes arise from conversations, there are always fine lines to be drawn. But it is intent that governs which side of the legal line such a meeting falls on, not success. This is obviously not a cast of characters out of some John le Carré novel, and the meeting may have been a bumbling effort. But it reveals important information about what the campaign was willing to do and with what intent. It is also just a single point in a complicated timeline of events involving many members of the campaign and the administration.

Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting may have been legal. But that's a low bar.
It's entirely possible that Trump Jr. forgot about this meeting with a shady Russian official all the way back in June of last year.

Like all new FBI agents at Quantico, Va., I got to know one particular individual very well when I was in the academy there. Her name was Carla F. Bad. Strictly speaking, she was not actually a person but an acronym whose name was a mnemonic device for the ways the bureau taught agents to measure people seeking positions of public trust: character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, finances, bias, alcohol and drugs. Carla F. Bad is the touchstone against which FBI agents learn to assess a person's honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in the course of checking their background. And she — rather than the criminal code — might be precisely what best reveals the shortcomings of the Trump administration.

The revelation that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer to obtain incriminating information about Hillary Clinton has sparked another round of analysis on the technicalities of criminal law. Specifically, legal experts are focused on whether White House adviser and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who also attended the meeting, violated the law by failing to disclose this meeting on his SF-86 government background form...

For the record, the SF-86 isn't easy to fill out. The form, more than 100 pages long, asks an individual seeking a national security position — meaning a position requiring a security clearance — for every place they've ever lived, every country they've ever visited, background information on every close relative, and almost every possible variation on their contacts with foreign officials. Even knowing that a false statement can carry a penalty of up to five years in prison, it's not uncommon for even the most honest person filling out the form to inadvertently omit a piece of information. On my own SF-86, which I completed when I was 27 to become a special agent for the FBI, I failed to disclose a speeding ticket I got when traveling home from college for Thanksgiving when I was 19. I got a grilling from the FBI: Why, they wanted to know, did I not mention this? "I forgot" wasn't the answer they wanted, but to my relief, they did accept it.

Which brings up the bigger picture: The SF-86 isn't an end in itself, or an attempt to entrap someone in a falsehood. It's a starting point for the FBI to determine the kind of person you are — and whether you are someone who can be trusted to guard sensitive information, uphold the law and protect the United States. And that's where Carla F. Bad comes in. It is most often questions that arise on these grounds, not false statements on the application itself, that prevent hundreds of individuals every year from obtaining their dream job in the federal government. In fiscal 2015, the last year for which data were available, the government approved 638,679 clearances, but at some agencies, such as the CIA, as many as 8.5 percent of applications were denied. The government reported that "foreign influence" was the most common reason for delaying security clearances, followed by "financial considerations."

Measuring the actions of Kushner, members of Trump's campaign, even the president himself against Carla F. Bad is revealing. Consider the questions that an FBI agent would ask a reference while conducting a background check: Can this person be trusted to do the right thing in a difficult situation? Is this person known as a reliable and honest person in their community? Does this person associate with individuals of questionable integrity? Has this person ever demonstrated a bias against a particular group of people? Does this person spend money wisely, or are they in serious debt? Has this person done or said anything to make you question their allegiance to the United States and its institutions? Answering "yes" to any of these questions would not make the person in question a criminal. But it would raise serious red flags about their suitability to hold a position of public trust.

It should, of course, be the bare minimum of what we expect from our public servants. Carla F. Bad reminds us, though, that as a nation we have held our government officials to something far higher: to common decency, fairness, ethical behavior and moral character. The recent focus on finding a smoking gun of criminality, or defending against it, has blinded us to these qualities. As a result, any behavior that lurks in the gaps of the criminal code gets defended as acceptable.

The question to ask isn't whether Kushner or others broke the law in meeting with Veselnitskaya. It's not even whether Trump's campaign aides broke any laws by "colluding" with a foreign power last year. If they did, then they should be held to account — but this is a ceiling, not a floor. To make this the standard of their suitability to lead the country suggests that Congress's failure to imagine and criminalize every possible lapse of ethical conduct is the last word on the expectations of our government officials. The question should be, more simply, whether the pattern of behavior that has so far come to light by various members of the administration demonstrates a capacity or willingness to uphold the public's trust.

It remains to be seen whether any actions by Trump Jr., Kushner, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, former adviser Carter Page, former national security adviser Michael Flynn or anyone else connected to the White House meet the very high standard for criminal liability. But while the criminal investigations take their course, the American public can reach their own verdict on the administration's trustworthiness — and here, Carla F. Bad should be our guide.

Even in the take-no-prisoners world of opposition research, Trump Jr.’s meeting was highly unusual
Linked in this article are actual .gov regulation codes if you want to follow them.

On Tuesday, ethics lawyers and veterans of past Washington campaigns said this sort of encounter — a campaign’s core officials meeting with a foreigner, to talk about dirt dug up by a foreign government — is highly unusual, even in the take-no-prisoners world of opposition research.

In most campaigns, what’s referred to as “opposition research” is usually more mundane: Paid researchers comb through public records and legislative histories, looking for information that makes a rival candidate look bad.

The intent is usually to produce a report that can be handed to reporters, along with documentation that would stand up to a journalist’s scrutiny. Campaign lawyers said it was very uncommon to have a foreign state offer to provide incriminating information.

Could the meeting also have been against the law? Legal experts said that depends on whether the aid promised by Veselnitskaya could be counted as a “thing of value” for legal purposes and whether Trump Jr. could be said to have “solicited” it by agreeing to the meeting.

It is illegal, under U.S. law, for a campaign to solicit or accept any contributions from foreign nationals or foreign governments.

Election lawyers and campaign veterans said they would have advised the younger Trump to avoid a meeting with someone identified as an emissary of the Russian state.

“He knew” that the lawyer’s information came from the Russian government, said Larry Noble, of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “This is clear. In this case, any question we had about what he knew has been removed. Because the email says the Russian government is helping.”

National Review: There Is Now Evidence that Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude With Russia
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

Donald Trump Jr.’s e-mails are damning.

Just hours ago, Donald Trump Jr. released one of the more astounding e-mail chains of the entire Russia controversy. The end result is that Americans may now be introduced to the term “attempted collusion.” Or, perhaps more accurately (based on present information), “failed collusion.” In other words, there now exists evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton....

— David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

 

[WiolentOne]

False thread title.

Nothingburger.

Offer still stands for anyone who wants to do an av/sig bet that nothing comes of this nothingburger. For some reason i didn't have any takers in the last two threads...

 

[TheComebackKid]

Still no mention of the Fushion/Dossier/Lawyer connection I see. Total hack.

 

[CargoKing]

First off nothing in my post claims that I do anything it's about what I see on FB. If you're reffering to the fact that people link to Hillary or some other politician doing it then I get it. The times that I've seen this though isn't people saying "looks XX does it too". It's them saying "this has been going on where the fuck have you been?". It's just a great way to remind people that even after Trump is gone this shit wont stop and will continue to happen whether the media decides to tell you about it or not.

This is kinda the point though. Trump was a pop culture cartoon who got taken seriously by simply screaming "look I'm different" the loudest during the primaries. Republicans were gonna hitch their wagon to whatever beat Hilary, so they went with something "different".

All the while we screamed "you're getting conned and taking us with you" and heard nothing but "maga! Cry SJW's!" in response.

We knew the only thing different about him is he was sleazier, more out for personal gain and dumber than usual. Politically he was clearly the same old shit.

 

[snakedafunky]

LOCK HIM UP

Honestly, that guy is lucky Kaiser Wilhelm is not in charge anymore.
Because Trump Jr would be standing right next to Hillary in the execution line.

Making deals with the Bolsheviks? That's the lowest you can go.

 

[Letssnuggle]

I was looking for it at the very bottom. You know, the disclaimer that you don't actually have proof of anything illegal.

 

[kpt018]

Do you two need a safe space?

Lol! They can't process the stuff in the OP without the opportunity to point the finger at the other team.

 

[kpt018]

I was looking for it at the very bottom. You know, the disclaimer that you don't actually have proof of anything illegal.

I guess you missed the part in the OP where legal experts do think there is proof of illegal activity?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

astonishing that a thread about something frankly miniscule gets such rapid traction here. V3 already?

cotdamn, this is GOT thread level ish right here

 

[m52nickerson]

Nope. It will just get deleted so no thanks.

That's a cop out.

 

[TheComebackKid]

That's a cop out.

It's already happened lol

 

[elfeliz]

Yea but what about Seth Rich tho

 

[Letssnuggle]

I guess you missed the part in the OP where legal experts do think there is proof of illegal activity?

You said it yourself. I'm not going to insult you by pointing out the keyword.

 

[CargoKing]

@Lead can we get you to edit into the op the story regarding this Lawyers connection to Fushion and the democrats?

Wait so the lawyer was connected to democrats?! That changes everything!!!!

If Trump Jr met with a lawyer connected to the kremlin to get dirt on Hilary.... oh wait, no nevermind. I just remembered nothing about the lawyer can change the sentence I started this paragraph with....

 

[TheComebackKid]

Wait so the lawyer was connected to democrats?! That changes everything!!!!

If Trump Jr met with a lawyer connected to the kremlin to get dirt on Hilary.... oh wait, no nevermind. I just remembered nothing about the lawyer can change the sentence I started this paragraph with....

The sentence isn't illegal or even immoral. So no need to change it. But the dems paying money to the Ukranian government for fake dirt and then setting up a sting operation, however, is.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Following the a scandal involving emails that showed possible collusion between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer-- a scandal that could potentially constitute serious crimes-- wherein he sought dirt in Hillary Clinton has shaken the Presidency, deeply, and fiercely reignited the public scrutiny of the Trump administration's conduct during the campaign while Mueller's FBI investigation quietly hums in the background. Previous thread versions here:
v2: Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia emails shake the presidency ***UPDATE: Gowdy Excoriates Trump***
v1: Don Jr., Kushner, and Manafort met with Kremlin lawyer in June: Don Jr. confirms meeting.


A bold Axios piece alleges that Trump's inner circle is furious with the leakers, and is entirely focused on that:
Inside the White House scramble on the Trump Jr. emails

That inside scoop would appear to be spot on because posted in the previous thread, and definitely worth review is how one of Trump's seniormost advisers, Corey Lewandowski, who formerly managed his campaign, where he gained infamy after physically assaulting a female reporter, then lying about it, has chosen to respond to this Trump Jr.s grossly immoral behavior (to apply the most favorable possibility). Are they showing contrition? Are they apologizing for the inappropriate contact? Have they offered anything?

Nope. They're threatening to root out the "leakers" and punish them for bringing this truth to account for the American people to consider. It's frightening stuff. These people appear to have little or no conscience:

Heads will roll after Trump Jr. leaks, Corey Lewandowski says



There was a massive amount of controversy over whether what has already been revealed constitutes a crime in the previous thread versions. Resident mod and attorney @Zankou nixed the notion that the campaign finance reform theory is credible, at all, but there appears to be a wider berth of criminality than that.

Here's a tidy collation of some of the source material that was posted on this matter for your convenience. Authors of these articles include FBI agents and attorneys themselves. Decide for yourself:

Trump administration: There's no evidence of collusion. 12 legal experts: Yes, there is.


Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting may have been legal. But that's a low bar.
It's entirely possible that Trump Jr. forgot about this meeting with a shady Russian official all the way back in June of last year.



Even in the take-no-prisoners world of opposition research, Trump Jr.’s meeting was highly unusual
Linked in this article are actual .gov regulation codes if you want to follow them.



National Review: There Is Now Evidence that Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude With Russia
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

"If it's what you say, I love it. "

 

[drstrangelov]

Still no mention of the Fushion/Dossier/Lawyer connection I see. Total hack.

No mention of the Pope dying either.

 

[m52nickerson]

It's already happened lol

Okay, since you seem to have lost your balls I will post the story for you. Then watch as it does not disappear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/w...atalia-veselnitskaya-gps-fusion-a7834541.html

Of course not you will have to explain how this changes anything regarding Donald Jr. accepting and going to the meeting?

 

[kpt018]

You said it yourself. I'm not going to insult you by pointing out the keyword.

Just read the link yourself.

 

[klnOmega]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...rt-met-kremlin-linked-lawyer-last-year-report

However, Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump's outside counsel, issued a statement late Saturday implying that the meeting was a setup. He said the Russian lawyer and her translator "misrepresented who they were."

Corallo told the Times that as part of her anti-Magnitsky campaign, Veselnitskaya employs a private investigator whose firm, Fusion GPS, produced the intelligence dossier that included unverified allegations about Trump.

Wow. Turns out this lawyer they met with also works with Fusion GPS, the organization that purchased the fake Steele Dossier from known KGB spies. She was working with them at the same time the DNC was, when they employed them to gather dirt on Trump by purchasing information from foreign spies. Interesting connection.