I’m not sure what the bombshell is. Trump admin acknowledged over a year ago that Trump Jr accepted the meeting under the pretext of getting dirt on Clinton. But the actual content of the meeting turned out to be about the Magnitsky Act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html
That’s not illegal, nor is it unusual for a campaign to take meetings with folks promising dirt on the other side. What has changed?
The Times and others seem to be conflating the pretext under which the meeting was arranged - dishing dirt - with what the actual focus of the meeting ended up being, to the campaign’s disappointment. That’s not inconsistent. Purported purpose of the meeting versus what was actually discussed are two different things that can both be, and likely are, true.
That story doesn't have any public formal statement from the Trump administration? Only fake secret sources.
Yeah we all knew what the meeting was for... That's not a bombshell.
Sorry, I thought that NYT article I linked had the actual statements. Here they are:
July 8, 2017: "It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up."
July 9, 2017: "I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. 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. 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. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/09/full-statement-by-donald-trump-jr-on-sundays-new-york-times-report.htmlJuly 10, 2017: "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."
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884395618784993280Ok.... None of those statements are inconsistent. I suppose you could argue that Trump JR's first statement was misleading because it omitted the purpose of the meeting, but they're not inconsistent when read together. They arranged the meeting on the pretext of getting dirt on Clinton. The promised dirt was a sham pretense to discuss other matters. What's the story here? What's the crime? Is anybody at all shocked that a campaign would take a meeting if promised dirt on the other side?
