Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 06, 2017

When President Donald Trump's eldest son met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 after being promised "information that would incriminate" Trump's election opponent Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. suggested that a U.S. law the lawyer was lobbying against could be reconsidered if Trump became president, according to the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. "The meeting was a failure; none of us understood what the point of it had been," she told Bloomberg in an interview on Monday, referring to the meeting that Trump Jr. initially claimed was about the Magnitsky Act, which Congress passed in 2012 to punish Russian officials for human rights abuses. "Looking ahead, if we come to power, we can return to this issue and think what to do about it,'' Trump Jr. said during the meeting, according to Veselnitskaya. "I understand our side may have messed up, but it'll take a long time to get to the bottom of it."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Veselnitskaya also claimed that he wanted "financial documents showing that money that allegedly evaded U.S. taxes had gone to Clinton's campaign," according to Bloomberg. But she said that she did not have them.

Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.'s lawyer, said he had no comment on Bloomberg's story.

The June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, which the New York Times uncovered this summer, has drawn close scrutiny from the multiple investigations into whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia last year.

Trump Jr. took the meeting, which was also attended by Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, after being told that the information on Clinton was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump,'' according to emails he released in response to the Times' reporting.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Veselnitskaya told Bloomberg that she would be willing to meet with the Senate Judiciary Committee and with special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which are both conducting investigations into the Trump campaign."

Oops, there it is!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 01:03 PM | Reply

"Donald Trump Jr. suggested that a U.S. law the lawyer was lobbying against could be reconsidered if Trump became president,"

Sounds like collusion to me.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 01:18 PM | Reply

"A Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump's oldest son last year says he indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said in a two-and-a-half-hour interview in Moscow that she would tell these and other things to the Senate Judiciary Committee on condition that her answers be made public, something it hasn't agreed to.

She has received scores of questions from the committee, which is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Veselnitskaya said she's also ready -- if asked -- to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Veselnitskaya said she went to the New York meeting to show Trump campaign officials that major Democratic donors had evaded U.S. taxes and to lobby against the so-called Magnitsky law that punishes Russian officials for the murder of a Russian tax accountant who accused the Kremlin of corruption.

"Looking ahead, if we come to power, we can return to this issue and think what to do about it,'' Trump Jr. said of the 2012 law, she recalled. "I understand our side may have messed up, but it'll take a long time to get to the bottom of it," he added, according to her.

Veselnitskaya also said Trump Jr. requested financial documents showing that money that allegedly evaded U.S. taxes had gone to Clinton's campaign. She didn't have any and described the 20-minute meeting as a failure.

www.bloomberg.com

More detail at the link

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 01:21 PM | Reply

Natalia Veselnitskaya, the one who also was working with Fusion GPS?:

Why was Hillary Clinton using an opposition research company with Putin-linked clients to dig up dirt on Donald Trump?

The claimed link that was identified in congressional testimony has its roots in the Putin regime's lobbying for the repeal of the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which froze assets and banned visas for Russians involved in or benefiting from Magnitsky's murder, as well as for others involved in torture, extrajudicial killings or abuses against those seeking to promote human rights or expose illegal activity by Russian officials. So far, some 35 Putin cronies have been sanctioned under the act, infuriating the Russian president.

After the act passed, prominent Magnitsky supporters in Russia began to be mysteriously poisoned, thrown off buildings or shot on bridges in front of the Kremlin. At the same time -- according to testimony by Magnitsky's boss, Hermitage Capital Management chief executive William Browder, recently made to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Fusion GPS launched a lobbying campaign in Washington to repeal the Magnitsky Act by charging (a) that Magnitsky was not murdered and (b) that he and Browder were, in fact, the ones responsible for the tax fraud. Of course, Magnitsky was blameless, and Browder's only crime was that he virtually single-handedly led the charge for passage of the Magnitsky Act -- originally opposed by the Obama administration, including Clinton's State Department.

One of the faces of the campaign to repeal the Magnitsky Act was the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (the same lawyer who famously met with Donald Trump Jr. in 2016). She visited the United States in 2016 ostensibly to lobby on adoption issues (Putin had barred Americans from adopting Russian children in response to the passage of the Magnitsky Act), but her real purpose was to push the repeal of the act and prevent the passage of a global law bearing Magnitsky's name. Concurrently, Veselnitskaya defended Prevezon, a company sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act for laundering money from the tax fraud Magnitsky uncovered. Prevezon is owned by Denis Katsyv, a Putin-linked oligarch and son of a former Russian government minister.

Washington Post: Clinton's link to Putin is the underreported ‘dossier' bombshell

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 02:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why was Hillary Clinton using an opposition research company with Putin-linked clients to dig up dirt on Donald Trump?

Don't know. Do you have anything to say in regards to the current President and his campaign's involvement with Russia and their effort to influence US elections?

#5 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-06 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4

Obfuscating for Trump again, eh?

You must be surprised to learn that a firm that specializes in ops research for anyone specializes in ops research for anyone.

I mean, for you to post something that makes such a distinction with no difference at all to the thread story.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 02:30 PM | Reply

Why was Hillary Clinton using an opposition research company with Putin-linked clients to dig up dirt on Donald Trump?

#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Maybe because Republicans were using them FIRST??? If you recall the timeline (though I know conservatives don't much care for "reality" or "facts"), the Trump Pee-Pee Dossier was originally commissioned by the conservative Washington Free Beacon, but once Trump won the nomination Fusion GPS went to the Clinton campaign to see if they wanted them to continue their research. So the real question is why conservatives originally decided to use such a, by your claims, sketchy firm to investigate Trump.

#7 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-11-06 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Obfuscating for Trump again, eh?

Nope, just pointing out facts that are inconvenient for your narrative.

Sorry you don't like it.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 02:41 PM | Reply

Do you have anything to say in regards to the current President and his campaign's involvement with Russia and their effort to influence US elections?

Same thing I always have, if the investigation leads to admissible evidence (as opposed to arm-flapping speculation) that Trump actively worked with the Russians to win the election, impeach him.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- facts that are inconvenient for your narrative.

You must mean facts that have no impact at all on the thread article narrative.

Don't be shy, just say what you mean next time... everyone already knows it's an obfuscative distinction with no difference.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 02:44 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Hey, look everyone, Corky learned a new pet phrase:

"an obfuscative distinction with no difference."

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 02:46 PM | Reply

So to recap for Corky:

Fusion GPS=>Hired by Free Beacon => paid for by DNC =>produces Steele Dossier=> for opposition research is not similar to Fusion GPS=>lobbying to repeal Magnitsky Act=>hires lawyer to meet with Trump Jr. to discuss same=> for opposition research.

Looks like there is two huge similarities there, but I am sure you will vehemently disagree.

Suffice it to say that the commonality probably hasn't escaped the attention of Mueller's team.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 02:51 PM | Reply

 

@#2 ...Sounds like collusion to me....

From what I understand (only about 75% certain) collusion in and of itself is not a crime.

Where things get dicey occurs when there is some material benefit received because of the collusion.

For example, candidate Trump asking at a campaign rally for Russia to release the 30,000 emails might be collusion. But unless Russia actually released those emails (i.e., a material benefit to the campaign) then candidate Trump's request was not illegal. Sleazily indicative of candidate Trump's ethics, possibly. But not illegal.

I've been looking around, trying to find more on this, but no one really seems to want to talk about it lately....

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-06 02:53 PM | Reply

Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators."

You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.

Conspiracy is what Mueller is looking for, collusion is just a way of throwing dirt on someone that doesn't rise to a criminal level.

To impeach Trump, you want Mueller to find a criminal conspiracy as opposed to colluding for an evil act. The latter happens on a daily basis in DC on both sides of the aisle.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 03:01 PM | Reply

So to recap for Corky:
Fusion GPS=>Hired by Free Beacon => paid for by DNC =>produces Steele Dossier=> for opposition research is not similar to Fusion GPS=>lobbying to repeal Magnitsky Act=>hires lawyer to meet with Trump Jr. to discuss same=> for opposition research.
Looks like there is two huge similarities there, but I am sure you will vehemently disagree.
Suffice it to say that the commonality probably hasn't escaped the attention of Mueller's team.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You forget where they promised a change in the law in exchange for dirt...
You forget where Putin's tech groups paid for advertising in support of Trump...
You forget where Putin, via third party, hacked and released damaging emails from the DNC in support of Trump...

Paying for dirt is one thing. What Trump did, allegedly, is something entirely different.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Suffice it to say

That your patented Clinton Deflection(tm) has absolutely nothing to do with Donnie Jr offering a quid pro quo deal to Putin through this attny to change a law that Putin desperately wants change; that death was one of the biggest scandals of his admin... in return for dirt on a political opponent, supposed dirt from a foreign power.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 03:05 PM | Reply

"they promised a change in the law in exchange for dirt" and "Donnie Jr offering a quid pro quo deal to Putin through this attny to change a law"

"We will take a look at it" is not legally enforceable as a promise, no matter how desperately you want it to be. That is what Mueller is looking at, not conjecture and arm flapping.

#15 Didn't forget about the other stuff, it just isn't part of this article.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 03:10 PM | Reply

Fusion GPS=>Hired by Free Beacon => Initiated by GOP => paid for by DNC => Paid for by FBI=> produces Steele Dossier => for opposition research
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

There you go, RoC. I fixed the blatant partisan hackery you injected into that comment.

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 03:13 PM | Reply

"Where things get dicey occurs when there is some material benefit received because of the collusion.
#13 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

Exchanging a promise to get a law changed for dirt on Hillary would appear to meet the definition of the federal crime. If that happened, some Trumpies could be in trouble.

#19 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-11-06 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We will take a look at it"... in return for dirt on our opponent IS a promise, and "legally enforceable" doesn't apply to these clandestine and illegal deals.

But hey, Trump and Jr appreciate your attempts at obfuscation, however lame.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 03:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Obfuscate" is Word of the Day.

wordinfo.info

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-06 03:22 PM | Reply

"they promised a change in the law in exchange for dirt" and "Donnie Jr offering a quid pro quo deal to Putin through this attny to change a law"
"We will take a look at it" is not legally enforceable as a promise, no matter how desperately you want it to be. That is what Mueller is looking at, not conjecture and arm flapping.
#15 Didn't forget about the other stuff, it just isn't part of this article.

#17 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No, you just pretended the other stuff didn't exist. And that's where the difference is. The article didn't compare the two. You did.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 03:23 PM | Reply

#19

Completely agree, but saying "if we get in power we will take a look at it" is not a legally binding promise, it is what is known in contract law as "an invitation to treat". If there is evidence that Little Donnie said "get us dirt and we will change the law", then that is an offer of a contract, would be a crime and might be enough to impeach The Donald. But Natalia doesn't say that.

"legally enforceable" doesn't apply to these clandestine and illegal deals.

It does if Mueller is going to find an actionable conspiracy, which is the point of his investigation.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 03:25 PM | Reply

#18

Pretty sure that it was clear that Free Beacon = GOP and as for the DNC/FBI part of it, I remind you who was the head of the DOJ at the time that the FBI allegedly paid for the dossier.

Partisan hackery indeed.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 03:36 PM | Reply

@#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 03:03 PM
You forget where they promised a change in the law in exchange for dirt... You forgot the part where you provide a citation of that unsubstantiated claim.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 04:26 PM | Reply

- Partisan hackery indeed.

Written on your favorite T shirt.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 04:33 PM | Reply

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter

So what about who was the head of the DOJ at the time? I am not sure what your point is. The FBI wasn't paying for the dossier. It started in the GOP and then moved to the DNC and THEN it apparently went to the FBI. A Never Trumper group found out a lot and let the DNC know who filled in the FBI. But nothing came of it right? It's all Nothing burgers in that dossier.

Look who is head of the DOJ NOW. Supposedly all this evidence of wrong doing has been in the FBI and DOJ for some time about the Clintons, still nothing happening on that front though. So I am guessing that is actual nothing burgers.

#27 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-06 04:39 PM | Reply

I am not sure what your point is. The FBI wasn't paying for the dossier.

You and I both think that is correct, but Indy doesn't think that as evidenced by his saying "paid for by FBI".

If he is correct, then the DOJ, at that time, was run by Loretta Lynch, a Democrat.

Sorry in advance if you think I am being patronizing.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 04:58 PM | Reply

"The FBI wasn't paying for the dossier. It started in the GOP and then moved to the DNC and THEN it apparently went to the FBI."
#27 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

So the FBI was involved or not? Can't eat your cake and have it too kid.

Whether they funded it or not is up for debate, but its besides the point.

#28 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

How convenient of you to ignore the GOP funding it again.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 05:17 PM | Reply

Hopefully there's an video/audio tape, or a document signed by Donald Trump, to corroborate the Russian lawyer's claims.

#30 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-06 07:09 PM | Reply

#30 Or as James Comey would say: Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 07:57 PM | Reply

Her message is from Putin and the Russian oligarchs to Trump: We made you; we can break you.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:57 PM | Reply

I don't know if she's telling the truth or not. It's not like Russia has given us reason to trust them.
What I do know is that truth or not, this is not good for Trump. If it's true then the problem is obvious. If she's not telling the truth then that sends a signal that Russia is targeting Trump.

#33 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-07 12:59 AM | Reply

How convenient of you to ignore the GOP funding it again.

#29 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2017-11-06 05:17 PM

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

"Pretty sure that it was clear that Free Beacon = GOP"

In that context, the "=" means "is the same as".

Hope this helps.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 12:05 PM | Reply

It's funny that the Russian/Trump apologists are so desperate to defend the indefensible that they don't even see the ridiculousness of the claim that this Russian lawyer only wanted to discuss adoptions. Like you would get Manafort, Kushner, and Donny Jr. to a meeting if that was really the topic on the table.

#35 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-11-07 07:53 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort