Some miscellaneous thoughts following my last post on the Case of the Mysteriously Mobile Russian Goalposts.
Priceless quote from the Carlos Slim blog, I mean the New York Times:
It is unclear whether the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually produced the promised compromising information about Mrs. Clinton.
No kidding. LOL. This is like the hundred and twelfth paragraph, after they’ve spent the first hundred and eleven paragraphs trying to get their readers all riled up over this “story.”
In fact it’s not “unclear.” If the Trump campaign had learned any “compromising information about Mrs. Clinton” and used it against Clinton during the election season, the media would have provided a link to such a Trump speech or tweet by now. So Trump Jr. received no such information. But the leftist media (pardon the redundancy) is trying to suggest that he did. And the narrative is:
“Russia helped American voters to be more informed before voting!
And that’s horrible!”
At first I was going to say that this illustrates how intellectually dishonest the Left is. But then it occurred to me that there’s another possibility: Maybe they really do think it’s horrible for voters to be informed before voting. After all, it’s the left, for whom informed voters are a catastrophe.
Hillary! tried to get dirt on Trump via Russia, LOL:
If an American campaign hearing facts from a Russian would have been treasonous foreign influence on our elections (WTF?) then what is encouraging illegals to actually vote in US elections?
Here’s a video of Obama encouraging illegals to vote. He tells some self-righteous little asshole, who admits that she’s an illegal, “When you vote, then you are a citizen.”
God, that man is evil.
And what was this non-existent info allegedly about? Check out this buried nuclear bomb from the above-linked NYT article:
“After pleasantries were exchanged,” he [Trump Jr.] said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton.”
Holy shit! The promised info was that the Clinton campaign, or at least the Democratic party, was being funded by Russia! Now that would be undue foreign influence!
The Left is saying, “A Dem candidate being funded by Russia would be no big deal, but if the GOP candidate learned about this from a Russian and exposed it, THAT would be a big deal.” How DARE you expose Hillary’s funding from Russia!
(NeverTrumper Megan McArdle: “People who love their country do not help rival powers intervene in their country’s elections, even if that intervention might have the lovely side effect of getting them elected.” Heh heh. Where “intervene in” means, “expose intervention in.”)
Or to put it even more tersely, “If we call out foreign contacts we’re being patriotic; if Trump had called out foreign contacts that not only wouldn’t be patriotic; it would be treasonous.”
This exemplifies what some of us mean when we say the Left has gone crazy.
Now. Based on all this we may make a confident prediction about how the Old Media will try to develop this story: They will continue to say, “It is unclear whether there was actually any compromising information about Clinton.” They HAVE to say this. Why? Because if they admit there was no information produced, the story goes away. But if they say there was information, they have to state what it was: And what it was, according to Veselnitskaya, was proof that the Clinton campaign was being funded by the Russian government.
So if they want to damage Trump, they have to leave the whole thing in a gray area, so they can keep saying, “There may have been some dirt on Clinton” …while hoping no one inquires too closely what that possible dirt would have been.
There’s something else remarkable: The brazen, in-your-face dishonesty of the Times. (Well, okay, NYT dishonesty hasn’t been remarkable for decades.) Bear with me through an extended quote here; there’s a reason for it:
When he was first asked about the meeting on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that it was primarily about adoptions and mentioned nothing about Mrs. Clinton.
But on Sunday, presented with The Times’s findings, he offered a new account. In a statement, he said he had met with the Russian lawyer… “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. 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.”
He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers… “It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.
In other words, he did not change his account of what happened. First he said it was primarily about adoptions, and then he again said it was primarily about adoptions.
The NYT, having presented its readers with the same account, then just brazenly says it was a different account.
This is something new. This is, “Here is what he said, plainly the same thing both times, and we are simply going to assert that they’re different things, even though you yourself can read, on this very same page, us informing you that it’s the same thing.” Wow. The left-wing press is now deliberately schlonging its own leftist readers.