Don Jr. Hysteria

Donald Trump Jr. took a meeting on one of Hillary Clinton's many crimes in Russia, the left was outraged.

The left has lost their nut over a fake controversy. Donald Trump Jr. took a meeting with a Russian lawyer (Keyser Söze) who implied she had information on one of Hillary Clinton's many crimes in Russia. No info was exchanged. If it had, it was not a crime. If he hadn't of investigated it, he would have been morally negligent.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2017-07-13

Facts[edit | edit source]

Any politician, or good American would be curious of evidence of crimes that the media has had no interest in looking into. This not a crime or moral outrage.

The Russian bait and switched and talked about their quest for a repeal of the Magnitsky Act (a law passed to punish Kremlin associates because of the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky).

No information was exchanged, there was no crime attempted, or committed.

Overreactions tend to hint at something: like fear that there might have been something, and they wanted to cover. Or they knew there was nothing, but wanted to hyperventilate for politics (fund raise) anyways. Virtually all reasons for outrage at investigating something are dishonest.

Those Russian lawyers, were working with Fusion GPS... the same firm the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid to make up “evidence” of Trump and Russia collusion, and had invented now-disproven stories about a secret server communicating with Russia in Trump Tower, or that gave Democrats’ money to former British spook Steele, who gave the money to alleged or former Russian intelligence agents to create the infamous and discredited Trump-Russia dossier. If there's anything ugly and sinister, it seems like the Democrats behavior was far worse than Don Jr.'s..

Where's the beef?[edit | edit source]

So because Trump Jr. took a meeting on Hillary Clinton's collusion, the left is accusing him of collusion (and screaming impeachment, again, like they have Tourette's), even though no information was exchanged, there was no crime or attempted crime, and there's no standard by which the Trump administration should look worse (to the sane and informed) than the Obama/Clinton on this.

The press played this as Don Jr. took a meeting with the Russian government, and that proves collusion. Only:

she wasn't with the Russian government, she was a lawyer from Russia. Not clarifying that is "fake news". (Propaganda)
its not collusion, which is working together on something criminal or financially beneficial, and this wasn't either

Even if she was a Russian operative, then the story is blown out of the water, because it was the Obama administration (through Loretta Lynch) that let her into the country under special circumstances (a special waiver, that was extended under special circumstances). And there's deeper ties between her, Fusion GPS (which was responsible for the fake dossier on Trump) and the DNC, and it gets really messy with overtones of collusion, for the Obama Admin and DNC. ^[1].

If she's a foreign operative, it proves that:

she was only in country because of Obama's lax malfeasance.
Worse than that, if she was a foreign agent she's required to register in the Foreign Agents Registration Acts Database (FARA), and of course she's not in there. That means if she was a foreign agent, the DOJ/Obama Admin failed to do their job in making sure she was registered^[2] -- so Trump Jr. can't be held accountable for not knowing that she was an actual foreign agent, because the Obama administration didn't do their job, or was colluding with the Russians (to hide her identity).
If she was a foreign agent, and got a meeting with Trump administration without warning from the Obama administration (knowing she was a foreign agent), what was the Obama administration doing? They should have been monitoring her, and warning the Trump administration about her.
Even if she was a foreign agent, that was trying to do the media's job of investigative journalism on the Clinton Crime Syndicate's illegal operations in Russia -- that doesn't mean she or Trump Jr. did anything wrong by having a conversation. (Only if she HAD information obtained illegally AND Trump Jr. knew it was obtained illegally, and he failed to disclose that to the FBI/etc, would it have been a crime -- but none of that happened).

So best case, she proves that the Obama administration was incompetent, or colluding with the Russian operatives to setup a Republican candidate. That's what collusion would look like, and Lynch and the Obama administration should go down for it.

Now she and others have said she was NOT an official operative of the Russian government (which I believe), then it blows the Hillary invented narrative of Russian collusion apart (as a delusion of the left) because:

what we know is Obama admin has more ties to her and the Russian government than the Trump administration does
Since she wasn't a foreign government trying to give information, and this is the best evidence the left/media has been able to come up with in nearly a year, they have a big fat nothing burger, without any sauce -- and all their histrionics (while ignoring more ties from Clinton/Obama) shows how disfunctional and unfair the media is.

So the point is the left has so little evidence of collusion, that they have to pretend that this is collusion. While in the meantime, Trump Jr. taking this meeting, kinda proves there's no collusion. If they were having high level and clandestine meetings with high level operatives in the Russian government, then there's no need to take a meeting with a lackey like her, who had nothing. (And they would have known they didn't have to take the meeting with her). So to those that can do 1+1, this hints at a lot more evidence of the Trump's non-collusion, than of any collusion, or they wouldn't have taken this meeting.

Make Believe[edit | edit source]

But let's pretend it is wrong to do this -- that this is a crime to work with a foreign government to find out dirt on your political opposition. (Even there's no evidence that's what he tried to do, or succeeded at doing).

Fine, then Hillary belongs in prison, because we have actual evidence than the Clinton campaign worked with Ukrainian operatives to dig up dirt on Trump, not to mention her pay-for-play Uranium deal (which is what actual collusion looks like), AND New Zealand PM funneling money into her campaign (foreign influence)^[3]. So if it's wrong for Trump Jr. to try to collude, then it's much worse for Hillary to succeed at colluding with Ukraine on the same issue, or Russia on our National Resources or New Zealand. (And it was as criminal for Barack Obama to send over allies to interfere with Israeli elections and undermine our ally Netanyahu^[4]).

Worse, the Democrats have colluded with the Russians to go after Republicans on 5 prior occasions^[5]. And they knowingly spread disinformation spread by the Russians to undermine the Trump campaign -- so again, if opposition research is a crime, it's time to start locking them up. ^[6]

So if this is the new standard we're going to retroactively go after Trump for, then we should prioritize on biggest fish first, and Democrats should set an example by crucifying their own. (Of course we know they only think it's a crime when the Republicans try to do, what they've already done).

It's not even the slightest bit immoral[edit | edit source]

If someone (who happened to be an Iranian or Russian) told you they had evidence that your next door neighbor is a pedophile, and they wanted a meeting to prove it to you, and you took the meeting to see if there was anything there, is that a crime, or even lapse in judgement? I don't think so.

Either they have facts, or they don't. If they don't have facts, then you saved everyone a lot of time by checking it out. If they do have facts, their motives and intent is irrelevant to the validity of the evidence. Now there might be something actionable (like informing authorities).

I ask the following of the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sufferers: if the UK, Russia or Iran had evidence of a Trump crime, and Obama took a meeting with them to discover what it was (before handing it off to the DOJ) is there anything wrong with that?

If Russia could show criminal behavior of BOTH candidates, we're better if we know about it, not that we (American people, or their political opposition) doesn't know because it came from a rotten source. And worst of all is ONLY if Russia knows about it, and the public does not -- because then they have leverage (blackmail material) on an American operative. So you not only have curiosity driving you, but patriotic responsibility to make sure a hostile government does NOT have leverage over any high level American official.

As for the media and left, you can bet 100% that if the NYT, WaPo, CNN and other places bitching about Trump Jr on this, that if they had a chance to follow this chain of evidence against Trump, they would have taken it in a heartbeat. So they're not mad at the action, they're only mad because it was done against a Democrat and not a Republican. (All three places have done worse to Republicans). So they protest too much, and only demonstrate their hypocrisy by complaining as much as they do on this.