Democrats are hell bent on proving that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials in an effort to win the 2016 election. Now they are focusing on the meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, that really turned into a ‘non-meeting’. Yet, if this was part of an effort to collude with Russia, then why is the Russian lawyer more closely associated with Democrats and anti-Trump protests?
Donald Trump Jr. is seeking to write off as a nonevent his meeting last year with a Russian lawyer who was said to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton. “It was such a nothing,” he told Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Tuesday. “There was nothing to tell.”
But everything we know about the meeting — from whom it involved to how it was set up to how it unfolded — is in line with what intelligence analysts would expect an overture in a Russian influence operation to look like. It bears all the hallmarks of a professionally planned, carefully orchestrated intelligence soft pitch designed to gauge receptivity, while leaving room for plausible deniability in case the approach is rejected. And the Trump campaign’s willingness to take the meeting — and, more important, its failure to report the episode to U.S. authorities — may have been exactly the green light Russia was looking for to launch a more aggressive phase of intervention in the U.S. election campaign.
Let’s start with the interlocutor: Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. When arranging the meeting, music promoter and Trump family acquaintance Rob Goldstone referred to a “Russian government attorney.” …
It doesn’t make sense that this Russian lawyer was part of a Kremlin scheme to collude with the Trump campaign to win the election. The only thing makes any sense at this stage of what we know is that the lawyer was part of either a Russian intelligence operation to discredit the Trump campaign or she was a plant by liberal Democrats for the same purpose. Neither of these likely scenarios fit with any Trump-Russian collusion.