Rush Limbaugh offered some excellent points last week, I thought, on the latest media outrage over Trump team collusion with the Russians to hack the election.
The news media was all over itself with joy over the discovery that in June of 2016 Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in the hope of getting “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” and using that against the Clinton campaign.
Here is what happened: A British publicist named Rob Goldstone emailed Junior claiming Veselnitskaya had this Russian-sourced information to offer (which he now denies even though the entire email thread has been made available by Junior). The DOJ gave her a specially expedited visa to enter the country (to participate in a lawsuit, “and nothing more”), and while here she met with Junior, Kushner and some others. But, they say, she had nothing.
This is where Limbaugh’s comments come in. First, the fact that Junior and Kushner took the bait indicates that prior to June of 2016 there had been no Trump-Russia collusion. If there had been, then they would have already had access to what she claimed to offer and they would have declined the meeting. So no collusion before June of 2016. Second, since her well of information came up dry, there was no collusion with the Russians, based on her as the source, after June of 2016. And since none of the other smoking guns that the media has dredged up to prove this collusion proved any shots actually fired, this leaves the media with nothing but air for all of the 2016 campaign. If it proves anything, it proves the opposite of what they hoped. It proves there was no Russian collusion: None before June, none resulting from the June meeting, and they had already proven there was none from other sources after the meeting.
But that has not stopped them from pounding their allegations into our ears ad nauseam. If the media has suddenly gone silent on this, the following is possibly why, according to ZeroPointNow at ZeroHedge. If you are looking for collusion here, it is on the other side of the aisle: Goldstone (the publicist that approached Trump Jr.) is the co-founder of Fusion GPS. This is the same firm that was, “behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier.” It is the firm that,
During the 2016 US election, … hired former British spy Christopher Steele to produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn’t verify it’s claims, the FBI refused to pay him $50,000 for the report – which didn’t stop John McCain from hand-delivering it to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from using it to start spying on Trump associate Carter Page.”
ZeroPointNow quotes the Independent reporting that Fusion GPS,
“according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.” -Mark Corallo
Fusion GPS was attempting to paint the Trump campaign with the false allegations of the Trump-Russia dossier at essentially the same time they were setting up a meeting with Trump Junior to bait them into actual Trump-Russia collusion? Does this not look like a honey trap?
It does, and they fell at least partially in, when they took the meeting. It was perhaps only lucky for them that there was nothing there that they could work with. So Fusion GPS has, finally, along with the Deep State and their leaks and co-conspiring journalists, proven for us (without meaning to) that there was no Trump-Russia collusion to hack the election. I wonder, will they give it up now? Does that seem likely to anybody?
So that is point number one. Point number two is that it is possible the Trump team declined to work with Ms. Veselnitskaya’s information not because it was not damaging to the Clinton campaign, but because it may have pointed not only to the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and/or the DNC, but also to questionable dealings prior to the campaign between shady Russian business moguls and the Trump team.
She was there to get the Magnitsky Act (enacted by Congress in late 2012) softened or repealed. She did not get her way on that score. Once elected, Trump actually came out strongly in favor of this law. Certainly if his election were the fruit of a Russian hack this would not be the case. “Overturning the Magnitsky Act is probably at or near the top of the list of Russian foreign policy objectives vis a vis the United States,” says Rolling Stone.
When the Trump team describes the information she offered as “inane nonsense”, though, it seems a bit pejorative for the case. Her information does not appear inane. It is if anything a bit weak on damning the Clintons, and besides points fingers in too many directions. But it is not inane. So why the slur? And why after this “unmeeting” did the Trump Justice Department, according to Rolling Stone, settle a case for Veselnitskaya’s client, Preveson Holdings, very much in their favor. “That settlement earlier this spring,” they say, “is now highly suspicious, given this week’s revelations.” The Washington Examiner reports,
The Obama administration’s Justice Department accused the company (in 2013) of laundering “some proceeds of a $230 million Russian tax refund fraud scheme involving corrupt Russian officials.” … The case brought against the Russian firm Prevezon Holdings was scheduled to go to trial in late May of 2017, but was settled just days prior. …
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to answer questions about his “abrupt” 2017 settlement of a fraud case involving the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. in 2016, and whether those two events are somehow connected. …
The Democratic letter (said) that the department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts.” …
Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met with Trump Jr. last June in Trump Tower, worked on the case defending Prevezon in the Southern District of New York in 2016. (Dems Demand Answers)
So Veselnitskaya meets with members of the Trump campaign team, and then once elected the Trump administration acts unfavorably toward Russian government interests but favorably toward the interests of some high level Russian businessmen. Perhaps if there was collusion it was not with the government of Russia but with Russian business interests?
Hmm, that fits with some other things I’ve seen. See Trump, Turkey and the DHS
Also see The Hillary Hack