Media Hounding Don Jr. - For What They Would Do!

Vincent J. Curtis

17 July 2017

The more I read about the media hounding of Donald J. Trump, Jr. over his meeting with a Russian lawyer, the more I believe that the brains of the media have been fried by spending too long in the Washington hothouse.

In researching this matter, the first thing I noticed is that it is damned hard to get a paper copy of Don, Jr.’s email chain from the media.  If you read the actual emails, you have to wonder what all the fuss is about.  Perhaps that is why the media doesn’t want the public to examine the matter for themselves, and so withhold the original source documents.   The emails show that Don Jr. was asked to meet with a source who allegedly possessed salacious and potentially criminal information on his father’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.  What reporter wouldn’t have taken the meeting?

No one has yet given a mature reading of the emails.  So let us give it a try…..

First, the timeline.  The email chain began on June 3^rd, 2016 and the episode concluded with the meeting on June 9^th.  The meeting was initiated by Rob Goldstone.  He told Don Jr. in the June 3^rd email that the “Crown Prosecutor of Russia” spoke to their mutual friend Emin’s father, Aras, about incriminating evidence on Hillary Clinton.  Goldstone inter alia said that this package of information was ‘part of the government’s support for Mr. Trump, helped along by Aras and Emin.’  In response to this, Don Jr. emailed back, ‘If it is what you say, I love it.’ i.e. in reference to the information.

This episode took place in early June, 2016, more than six weeks before the hacked DNC emails appeared on WikiLeaks.  These were the emails that showed collusion among the DNC to ensure that Hillary won the nomination over Bernie Sanders.  The Russian angle was initiated during the Democratic convention in order to distract attention from the authentic and politically explosive contents of those emails.  Whenever a journalist asked some Democrat poohbah about the contents of the DNC emails, the poohbah would not answer the question but instead refer to their alleged Russian origin. (Recall Debby Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign over the contents of the emails, and Donna Brazile was exposed in them.)

Also ongoing at this time was the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server "matter."  That "matter" climaxed on July 5^th, 2016, with James Comey pardoning Hillary Clinton.  Everybody suspected the fix was in for Hillary, from statements directly from Barack Obama himself, to the tarmac meeting between Comey’s boss Loretta Lynch and Hillary’s husband Bill.  The emails hacked from John Podesta's gmail account and posted on WikiLeaks, also attributed to Russian efforts, was more than four months in the future.

So, six weeks at a minimum before the words “Russia” and “collusion” were on the lips of every media type and Democrat hack (but I repeat myself), Don Jr. was invited to receive some interesting information about Hillary over and above what was then publicly known.

Now, look at the supposedly incriminating lines quoted to establish collusion.  They come from Goldstein, who said that the package was ‘part of the [Russian] government’s support for Mr. Trump…’  On a point of mere grammar, Goldstein is obviously offering his sheer opinion, i.e. that the Russian government supported Mr. Trump.  That opinion was quite evidently offered to hype the meeting he wanted to arrange with Don Jr.  A moment's thought will bring you to the conclusion that Goldstein simply cannot know that the Russian government supported Mr. Trump.  Even if Goldstein’s KGB handler told him to say that, it doesn’t make it so.

Don Jr.’s allegedly incriminating response was, “If it is what you say, I love it.”  Grammatically, the antecedent to the pronoun 'it' is the information that is on offer.  What political operative, investigative journalist, or FBI agent wouldn’t want to have a look at a file like that?  I’d love to see it too!  And so would Peter Switzer, author of Clinton Cash.

Another tip-off to an authenticity problem is the reference to the ‘Crown Prosecutor of Russia.’ made by Goldstein.  Does such a position even exist?  Russian is a republic, not a Grand Duchy, and so there is no “crown” in Russia; and the ‘of Russia’ in the title would mean a position equivalent to the US Attorney-General.  Why would such a person approach the father of a friend of a friend?  How would he even know of the existence that chain of relationships, let alone know that that approach would reach the Trump campaign?

Now, assuming that such a file did exist with authentic information, would such a fact establish a favoritism of Putin for Trump?  Actually, it shows the opposite.  The dossier offered to Don Jr. was of money and favors and collusion between Hillary Clinton and the Russian government, and that the dossier was in the manner of a leak.  Thus, authentic proof of collusion with Russia by Hillary Clinton was being offered to Don Jr. as a leak.  Hence, the alleged favoritism of the Russian government towards Trump falls to the ground given that the information on offer is of benefits given by Russia to Hillary Clinton.  Goldstein’s opinion that the dossier is a sign of the favoritism of the Russian government for Trump Sr. is self-contradictory.  The leaked proof of Russian collusion with Hillary is a sign of Russian favoritism for Trump Sr.  Doesn’t make sense.

All this confusing background makes a meeting all the more intriguing.  Here is potentially salacious information from sources Don Jr. knew and trusted, and it’s no wonder he took the meeting.  What the hell have they got??

Regardless of who else invited themselves to the meeting with Don Jr., when presented with the dossier, Don Jr. asked straightaway if they had any proof or supporting documentation to back up the allegations in the file.  That was when the Russian delegation started talking about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption of Russian children.  When Don Jr.’s question about the authenticity of the dossier was not addressed, he immediately lost interest in the dossier, and the meeting ended.  The hyped dossier of Russian goods on Hillary Clinton proved to be a ruse for something else.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Now, if the media could take off their tin-foil hats for a minute, maybe some of the collusion hysteria would be allowed dissipate.  And yes, I mean you too Dr. Charles Krauthammer!

Given the origins of the meeting, it is no wonder that Don Jr took it.  Any number of other people would also – journalists, and FBI agents.  It is only in retrospect that Russian collusion can be inferred since this meeting took place well before "Russia" was on every lip, which might have served as a caution to Don Jr.

But when you are as desperate to show anything, as the media and the Democrats are at this stage, anything will do – even something as pathetic as this twenty minute meeting based on a ruse.

-30-