One of the articles came from Matt Apuzzo, Jo Becker, Adam Goldman, Maggie Haberman yesterday in which “Alan Futerfas, the lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump, said his client had done nothing wrong but pledged to work with investigators if contacted.”
“In my view, this is much ado about nothing. During this busy period, Robert Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia,” Futerfas told The Times in an email on Monday. “Don Jr.’s takeaway from this communication was that someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew. Don Jr. had no knowledge as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed.”
“It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.
“Goldstone himself represents Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, whose father was President Trump’s business partner in bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013. “In an interview Monday, Mr. Goldstone said he was asked by Mr. Agalarov to set up the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.”
In a series of tweets, Trump Jr. “insisted he had done what anyone connected to a political campaign would have done — hear out potentially damaging information about an opponent. He maintained that his various statements about the meeting were not in conflict.
“Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen,” he sarcastically wrote in one tweet. In another, he added, “No inconsistency in statements, meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions. In response to further Q’s I simply provided more details.”
“The younger Mr. Trump, who had a reputation during the campaign for having meetings with a wide range of people eager to speak to him, did not join his father’s administration. He runs the family business, the Trump Organization, with his brother Eric.
“He said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have."
What was most interesting however, is how quickly and viciously Times readers responded to the story.
Reader Eric commented from Brooklyn New York: “What has to come out before the republicans say "enough," and do their constitutional duty and end this farce?!
3652 others “Recommended” the thought.
Lynne added: “Donald Jr. did what "anyone would have done?" Seriously? Solicited information from an enemy state in order to slander a candidate for the U.S. Presidency?
Where is the outrage from the Republican Party? How are they maintaining so much complacency in the face of these continuing outrages? What level of immorality is acceptable to them?
3950 “Recommend” this one.
a goldstein commented: “Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email [from a Kremlin connected Russian lawyer] that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy..."
“I'm not a U.S. attorney but this sounds a lot like interference in the U.S. presidential election by a foreign government. If the public knows this much, how much more does Robert Mueller know?
When are the indictments coming?”
3248 “Recommended” the comment.
Wendi commented: “Much to do about nothing? This is the best evidence to date showing that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the election in Trump's favor. And they all lied about it.”
Glevine commented: “Whether or not Trump Jr. used the info or planned to use it is not the most important thing. The fact that the Russian government was (and probably is) actively influencing our elections is very disturbing. They worked hard to get the President they wanted and they succeeded. I don't think that it is the only reason that Clinton lost, but idea that the Russians were a part of it is frightening for our future.”
Although the anti-Trump opinions of Times readers is not surprising at all, one would think that one’s considered intellectually superior to most others would have shown significant distaste for their own presidential candidate and her associates.
Because, while the New York Times and its readers clamor for Trump's impeachment based on third-hand speculation of his son’s seeking damaging information from Russians, far more solid evidence exists regarding Democrat leadership’s involvement with the Russian’s as well.
The details came from Peter Schweizer the investigative journalist, novelist, author and political consultant. His books and research has been covered by 60 Minutes, The New York Times, NPR, The Wall Street journal, Forbes Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, Fox News and many other organizations.
Schweizer has been the provider of significant information regarding John Podesta the head of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign team, as follows:
“In 2011, a small green-energy company, Joule Unlimited, announced Podesta’s appointment to its board. Months later, Rusnano, a Kremlin-backed investment fund founded by Vladimir Putin, pumped $35 million into Joule. Serving alongside Podesta on Joule’s board were senior Russian official Anatoly Chubais and oligarch Ruben Vardanyan, who has been appointed by Putin to a Russian economic modernization council.
“Podesta owned 75,000 shares of Joule stock. When he joined the Obama White House, Podesta transferred his Joule shares to an LLC controlled by his adult children.
“After leaving the White House and joining the Clinton campaign, Podesta resumed communicating with Joule and its investors. In fact, he received an invoice from his lawyers in April 2015 — a consent request for Dmitry Akhanov of Rusnano USA to join Joule’s board.
“In an interview with Fox News, Podesta contended: “I was on the board of an American company that did business here and only here. The Russian company had a small investment in that company.” It’s true that Joule was based in Massachusetts, but its connection with Russia was clear. Schweizer points out:
Schweizer concludes:
“In short, Clinton’s top campaign chief and a senior counselor to Obama sat on Joule’s board alongside top Russian officials as Putin’s Kremlin-backed investment fund funneled $35 million into Joule. No one looking at the Podesta fact pattern can claim to care about rooting out Russian collusion and not rigorously investigate the tangle of relationships.”And then, from the same New York Times now casting suspicions on Trump, back on April 23, 2015, reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire produced an article titled: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”
The following several paragraphs detail how the Clinton’s went far further than the one twenty-minute meeting with Trump Jr. To the extent that they received just under $3 million between donations to their foundation and Bill’s speaking fee for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Here are the details from the article.
“The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
“At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.”
At the time the The New York Times’ examination of the Uranium One deal was “based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.”
Most importantly, the Times writer’s then produced a conclusion far more damning than the one presently concerning Trump, Jr., as follows:
“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”
Thus, the double-standards and acquiescence's granted to leftist candidates are extremely hard to fathom indeed.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment