3 ms·

Just in case any bystanders were wondering about the reality here: On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote: > Good morning > Emin just called and as

Just in case any bystanders were wondering about the reality here: On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote: > Good morning > Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. > The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. > This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin. > What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? > I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first. > Best > Rob Goldstone On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote: > Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back? > Best, > Don https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/d...

smsm42 9y ago
Which confirms the first half of what I said - Trump Jr. was promised some dirt on Clinton, and not just dirt like "she said a bad word in private conversation", but dirt like "she committed actual federal crime and we have proof". The second part - that it all was a lie and trick to get Trump in the room to lobby against Magnitsky Act - has been confirmed by multiple sources present in the meeting and by otherwise knowledge of Veselnitskaya's activities. Of course, no mention of any hacking whatsoever or any actual information that ever existed.
- marshray 9y ago
  Every* US intelligence agency has agreed with the attribution of the DNC hack to known teams within Russian intelligence. There are no "sources present in the meeting" who are not themselves the subject of the investigation. Their claims as to what transpired are simply not trustworthy. *With the exception the NSA, which declined to say anything.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > Every* US intelligence agency has agreed with the attribution of the DNC hack to known teams within Russian intelligence. This topic is extensively discussed in other threads, but what it has to do with the meeting in question? > There are no "sources present in the meeting" who are not themselves the subject of the investigation. Depends on what you call "subject". If you mean that they spoke to that person, that probably is not true for all Russian participants and Goldstone. If you mean those who Muller team would like to talk to, that's probably all of them, which is not surprising - it's the best way to catch somebody on a lie or omission (which is a federal crime, for which they already indicted two people - instant win). If you mean those Muller would especially love to indict in something, that's probably true for Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr. If you mean somebody Muller can actually get something on - that's only Manafort, and for things having nothing to do with Trump and that happened when Trump didn't even know Manafort existed. But basically you are implying nothing people present at the meeting say about what happened there is to be believed. But we're still talking about it, so presumably we should believe people that actually hasn't been there to tell us what happened there, and disbelieve people that actually been there when they say that's not what happened. All this without any actual evidence. Doesn't seem like a good idea.

smsm42 9y ago

Which confirms the first half of what I said - Trump Jr. was promised some dirt on Clinton, and not just dirt like "she said a bad word in private conversation", but dirt like "she committed actual federal crime and we have proof". The second part - that it all was a lie and trick to get Trump in the room to lobby against Magnitsky Act - has been confirmed by multiple sources present in the meeting and by otherwise knowledge of Veselnitskaya's activities. Of course, no mention of any hacking whatsoever or any actual information that ever existed.

marshray 9y ago
Every* US intelligence agency has agreed with the attribution of the DNC hack to known teams within Russian intelligence. There are no "sources present in the meeting" who are not themselves the subject of the investigation. Their claims as to what transpired are simply not trustworthy. *With the exception the NSA, which declined to say anything.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > Every* US intelligence agency has agreed with the attribution of the DNC hack to known teams within Russian intelligence. This topic is extensively discussed in other threads, but what it has to do with the meeting in question? > There are no "sources present in the meeting" who are not themselves the subject of the investigation. Depends on what you call "subject". If you mean that they spoke to that person, that probably is not true for all Russian participants and Goldstone. If you mean those who Muller team would like to talk to, that's probably all of them, which is not surprising - it's the best way to catch somebody on a lie or omission (which is a federal crime, for which they already indicted two people - instant win). If you mean those Muller would especially love to indict in something, that's probably true for Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr. If you mean somebody Muller can actually get something on - that's only Manafort, and for things having nothing to do with Trump and that happened when Trump didn't even know Manafort existed. But basically you are implying nothing people present at the meeting say about what happened there is to be believed. But we're still talking about it, so presumably we should believe people that actually hasn't been there to tell us what happened there, and disbelieve people that actually been there when they say that's not what happened. All this without any actual evidence. Doesn't seem like a good idea.