Donald Trump Jnr. Met Russian Lawyer in 2016

[toucana]

The New York Times has printed a follow-up to their Saturday story about a meeting between Donald Trump Jnr. and a Russian lawyer in June 2016.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?referer=https://t.co/KyaqGWOmFD

The meeting which took place at Trump Tower on 9th June 2016 involved Donald Trump jnr, Paul Manafort who was Trump campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump. They met with a prominent female Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

The purported purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible ways of reversing a Russian ban on US citizens adopting Russian babies that had recently been enacted by President Vladimir Putin in retaliation for a 2012 US law called the Magnitsky act which allowed the USA to withold the visas and freeze the assets of Russians thought to have violated human rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act

The latest NYT follow-up story now claims that Donald Trump jnr. was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with this Russian lawyer. Donald Trump jnr. appears to have confirmed in part that such an offer was made by the Russians at the meeting, but seems to deny knowing that such a pitch was going to be made in advance.

He also denies briefing the other two campaign members on what might be discussed, even though it was he who invited them to attend.

This meeting on 9th June 2016 is the latest in a list of private meetings with Russians that Jared Kushner, among others, subsequently forgot to mention on their security clearance forms, and it is one that has attracted immediate attention from Democrat members of the House Intelligence committee.

Rep. Adam B Schiff the minority leader has said that he now wants to question everyone who was at that meeting.

[toucana]

Donald Trump jnr. has changed his story in the light of further disclosures by the NYT and has now conceded that the purpose of the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower in 2016 was to obtain negative information about Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/donald-trump-russia/index.html

Leon Panetta the former Director of CIA who was interviewd on CNN has pointed out that it is a criminal offense under Federal election law for members of a candidate’s campaign staff to solicit the assistance of a foreign agent (registered or unregistered).

Richard Painter who was the former ethics advisor to President George Bush said on CNN that Donald Trump jnr. could not possibly have been unaware that any damaging information about Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian source would most likely have been acquired by criminal acts of espionage committed on American soil. Painter likened it to buying a television set from an underworld fence. You can’t then plausibly express innocent astonishment when told that the TV you bought on the cheap was stolen goods.

White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabeee Sanders has dismissed the significance of the June 9th meeting in 2016 by saying it was very short and of no significance. She also claimed that President Trump was unaware of it until a couple of days ago. Journalists however have pointed out that Donald Trump was actually in New York on 9th June 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gop-donors-gather-hear-donald-trump-s-pitch-n589326

An NBC report from that day indicates that candidate Donald Trump was meeting potential campaign investors at the Four Seasons hotel which is catty-corner just across the street from Trump Tower where his son Donald jnr. was meeting Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, along with campaign chair Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner. It also indicates that Trump met Paul Manafort himself in another meeting that very same day. It seems unlikley that they didn’t compare notes.

[Watson]

This is better than any political TV drama. I just hope, in the end they avoid paying some taxes. Seems that is the only thing that crowd does time for. ??

[BadgerJelly]

Looking at this in a level-headed manner I don't really see anything of substance here.

We have someone suggesting they have information that would bring Clinton into disrepute. This person is a lawyer.

I would meet with her to see what she had to say, who honestly wouldn't?

I would be very interested to see a comparison if people dug and looked for how many Russians other presidential candidates campaigners met. Then keep in mind a lot of people are out to get Trump and any little piece of information they find is being spread across news networks.

He said, she said, blah blah blah.

I do find it strange that we're presented with "female lawyer" rather than just "lawyer". This lawyer was obviously no ordinary lawyer, it was a "female lawyer". That is the only thing that stuck out for me as an obnoxiously pointless point.

[toucana]

by BadgerJelly on Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:54 am

Looking at this in a level-headed manner I don't really see anything of substance here.

At the risk of labouring the obvious, it is a criminal offence for US election campaign staff to solicit the support of a foreign national.

Even if they genuinely believed that the intended purpose of the meeting was to simply to discuss the Magnitsky Act, it's worth noting that this in itself would have been a covert discussion of dubious legality aimed at subverting an ongoing schedule of US government sanctions against Russia.

As it happens fresh reporting from the NYT has now disclosed that there was an email sent to Donald Trump jnr. in advance of the meeting by a tabloid publicist and pop music manager called Rob Goldstone which made it explicitly clear that the Russian contact was offering defamatory and damaging information about Hillary Clinton for political purposes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40565091

Anthony Zurcher writing for the BBC said

In a traditional campaign, a foreign government's attempt to offer incriminating information about an opponent - or even the hint of such an overture - would set off all kinds of alarms. The FBI would have been notified. Senior staff would have insulated themselves from incrimination.

An example cited on CNN last night happened during the US 2000 presidential election when Al Gore's team received an unsolicited document that purported to be George W. Bush's play-book for a forthcoming debate. The Gore staff immediately contacted the FBI to report the offer.

The Trump team was not a conventional campaign. And time and time again, they have made novice mistakes - or, more ominously, taken unprecedented risks.

Their candidate prevailed, but it has led to countless political headaches. Now it appears the president's own family, and his presidency itself, could be in peril. They have only themselves to blame.

[Watson]

I do find it strange that we're presented with "female lawyer" rather than just "lawyer". This lawyer was obviously no ordinary lawyer, it was a "female lawyer". That is the only thing that stuck out for me as an obnoxiously pointless point.

Strange the emphasis on female, or strange the Russians sent a female. No doubt if it was a frumpy older female, it would have been 'a lawyer' but it is no surprise the Russians would send an attractive female to the meetings. The fact she was a lawyer is only secondary criteria. And if they get anything incriminating it would be a bonus. Actually, the junior trumpster was compromised just taking the meeting. This could have/would have been used to 'influence' trump down the road, had junior not let the worms out of the can prematurely.

[BadgerJelly]

From CNN site above:

Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

So what? Am I missing something important here?

[toucana]

A review of campaign speeches by Donald Trump in 2016 indicates that he had the following to say during his victory speech in New Jersey on the evening of Tuesday 7th June (put a pin in that).

“I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting”

.

http://time.com/4360872/donald-trump-new-jersey-victory-speech-transcript/

The following Monday was 13th June, and Trump had nothing new in the way of defamatory information about Hillary Clinton to offer to the public on that date.

So what came in between 7th June and the 13th June ? The answer is the abortive meeting on Thursday 9th June between Donald Trump jnr and a Russian lawyer Natalia Veslenitskaya who had apparently promised, but failed to deliver any new or damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

It is crystal clear that Donald Trump's public boast on 7th June that he was going to provide new dirt on Clinton by the following Monday was predicated on advance knowledge of the planned meeting between his son Donald jnr and his helpful Russian contact in two days time.

Donald Trump was fully cognisant of the purpose and agenda of that meeting, and fully complicit in the potentially treasonous collusion with Russian intelligence agencies that was going on - He's done for.

[jocular]

If you were to ask the public in the States whether knowing that a candidate for the post of President of the US was being briefed by representatives of a foreign government (esp Russia or China) in an attempt to gain electoral advantage via information provided by them to the candidate, would the American public find this acceptable?

We know many would not (and it would ,I believe) be illegal but would a significant section go along with this if they felt it favoured their preferred choice for the position.Would some (many?) even welcome it?

[Watson]

From CNN site above:

Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

So what? Am I missing something important here?

The fact that he took the meeting? Just because "It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information." doesn't negate little trumpster's intentions. His intentions were nefarious, regardless of the outcome.

[Watson]

If you were to ask the public in the States whether knowing that a candidate for the post of President of the US was being briefed by representatives of a foreign government (esp Russia or China) in an attempt to gain electoral advantage via information provided by them to the candidate, would the American public find this acceptable?

We know many would not (and it would ,I believe) be illegal but would a significant section go along with this if they felt it favoured their preferred choice for the position.Would some (many?) even welcome it?

No doubt many would be very forgiving of any advantage they/their candidate had regardless of legality. Others may easily consume the spin from their candidate not true/not a big deal/ or not that illegal. Truth goes to the loudest dollars.

[BadgerJelly]

From CNN site above:

Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

So what? Am I missing something important here?

The fact that he took the meeting? Just because "It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information." doesn't negate little trumpster's intentions. His intentions were nefarious, regardless of the outcome.

Says who? This is my point.

If you are running for government and someone suggests they have evidence showing that your opponents are being funded by Russia would you see this person? That is the point. If there was any substance you then expose it to the public.

[Watson]

Being funded by Russia is one thing, and the general dirt is another thing, but in either case you have to realize you are going to owe someone in the future. Getting elected and then owing it to criminals of any kind is not worth it. And exposing yourself to this type of problem without knowing what the dirt is, is just stupid.

If it was me, I would call the appropriate authority. If it is nothing fine. If it is something, again fine. If it is nothing, but later becomes something, like this. Then again fine, because I did the right thing earlier.

[toucana]

BadgerJelly wrote:
Says who? This is my point.
If you are running for government and someone suggests they have evidence showing that your opponents are being funded by Russia would you see this person? That is the point. If there was any substance you then expose it to the public.

You call the FBI and turn the matter over to them. Any other course of action puts you bang in the gunsights of conspiracy and espionage charges.

If by any chance you were unethical and demented enough to follow it up yourself, you would employ a cut-out or intermediary of some description. Even 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon himself wasn't dumb enough to sit down with the Watergate plumbers and tape himself having a beer with them and cracking jokes about the finer points of the art of burglary.

The people at Trump Tower neither knew nor cared whether the information they were being offered by Russian sources about Clinton was true or not. They only cared about whether it was politically damaging to her and could be used to the political advantage of campaign Trump, and they did so in the certain knowledge that it could only have obtained by illegal acts of Russian espionage on American soil.

If you still want to ask "Says who?" then the answer is 'Donald Trump jnr.'

He just released the entire email thread where he is told the information is coming from the Kremlin and says "I love it".

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-lawyer-emails/index.html

[BadgerJelly]

Yeah, just read those e-mails! hahaha!!!

Funny shit! That guy is a damn idiot. I was trying to play devil's advocate because I am against Trump.

[wolfhnd]

I have one comment on this and I will let you figure out how it is relevant.

Why did the left allow social justice warriors to destroy the Occupy Wall Street movement.

[BadgerJelly]

I have one comment on this and I will let you figure out how it is relevant.

Why did the left allow social justice warriors to destroy the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Because you are suggesting the people doing the thing are really not doing the thing in order to do the thing by not doing it?

[toucana]

It has now emerged that Donald Trump jnr’s controversial meeting on 9th June 2016 actually involved a total of six people, two more than formerly disclosed.

The rapidly changing version of events on offer now says that Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was accompanied by two other people according to NBC sources.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851

One of the previously undisclosed particpants was a man called Rinat Akhmetsin who is described as a Russo-American lobbyist and former Russian intelligence officer. The other undisclosed participant has not yet been named, but was described as a ’translator’, which is interesting, because all the other people attending that meeting spoke fluent English.

The name Rinat Akhmetsin will ring a lot of bells with journalists who have been following the activies of Rep. Dana Rohrbacher. The latter was reported to have been spotted in a meeting with Akhmetsin in the Westin Hotel in Berlin on 11 April 2017 apparently discussing Russian sanctions and a high-level Russian money laundering case according to two witnesses. The case in question involved Prevezon Holdings, a Cyprus based company said to be involved in laundering $230million stolen from Russian taxpayers in 2007 into Manhattan real estate.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/rohrabacher-prevezon/index.html

Sen.Charles Grassley the chair of the Senate Intel committee had subsequently asked for a full report on the immigration history and status of Rinat Akhmetsin who is said to be an unregistered foreign agent.

[Watson]

Sad! I seem to feel now, anything happening is somehow not as interesting, even a let down after the trumpster's e-mail foot shot. Bang, right in the middle toe.

[toucana]

By an odd coincidence, Prevezon Holdings, the Cyprus property company suspected of laundering $230million of dirty Russian money into the New York real estate market in 2007 was the same one that was being prosecuted in NY south district court by attorney Preet Bharata until he was suddenly and inexplicably dismissed on Friday 10th March 2017.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/preet-bharara-us-attorney-refuses-resign-jeff-sessions

The DOJ then rapidly reached a settlement that effectively dismissed the case against Prevezon Holdings on 12th May 2017, following discussions with their legal team which included a Russian lawyer called Natalia Veselnitskaya whose name is possibly becoming rather familiar by now.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/democrats-want-to-know-if-trump-quashed-a-russian-money-laundering-case-in-return-for-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/

This chain of events has now aroused the curiosity of 17 Democrats from the House Judiciary Committee who have written the following letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

Last summer, Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected attorney in an attempt to obtain information “that would incriminate Hillary.” Earlier this year, on May 12, 2017, the Department of Justice made an abrupt decision to settle a money laundering case being handled by that same attorney in the Southern District of New York. We write with some concern that the two events may be connected—and that the Department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts.

Is this all starting to come into focus now ?

[toucana]

And then there eight !

https://www.dailykos.com

The Daily Kos has joked that there seem to have been more people at this meeting than there were at DT's inauguration.

Other journalists who are familiar with the interior layout of Trump Towers say that the room on the 25th floor where the meeting is said to have taken place is actually the principal boardroom of the Trump organisation, and is fitted with a massive table capable of seating at least 20.

https://twitter.com/drmikehunt/status/885892702344060928

[Sivad]

I do find it strange that we're presented with "female lawyer" rather than just "lawyer". This lawyer was obviously no ordinary lawyer, it was a "female lawyer". That is the only thing that stuck out for me as an obnoxiously pointless point.

Strange the emphasis on female, or strange the Russians sent a female. No doubt if it was a frumpy older female, it would have been 'a lawyer' but it is no surprise the Russians would send an attractive female to the meetings. The fact she was a lawyer is only secondary criteria. And if they get anything incriminating it would be a bonus. Actually, the junior trumpster was compromised just taking the meeting. This could have/would have been used to 'influence' trump down the road, had junior not let the worms out of the can prematurely.

What?

This is the female lawyer -


I don't think playboy Trump Jr. was out of his mind with lust.

[toucana]

Rinat Akhmetshin the former Russian GRU officer and anti-sanctions lobbyist in Washington DC was first identified as a participant in the 9th June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump jr. in an interview he gave to the AP news agency on 14 July 2017.

https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a/Russian-American-lobbyist-says-he-was-in-Trump-son's-meeting

Buried in the tenth paragraph of the AP report was this singular detail:

Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democrats, Akhmetshin said. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said.

“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.

In other words, she didn't just bring vague gossip or rumour to the table, she had an entire folder of printed out documents to support her case which she apparently left behind on the table according to some reports.

You can safely expect that federal investigators will be very interested in finding out exactly what these documents were, and what subsequently became of them.

[Watson]

She does have a bit of a resemblance to Valerie Bertanelle?

Maybe not lust, but who is to say what is in the hart of another?
Clearly, the head is empty.