“My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded,” Comey said in his testimony.
“But when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents,” according to the outlet.
The ‘Russian Lawyer Meeting’ Story Is a Giant Red Herring
Notice how the goalposts have shifted. The question of collusion has always concerned Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election, allegedly by hacking the Democratic National Committee and other targets.
What the Russian lawyer allegedly offered was entirely different — information “that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton,” Trump, Jr. told the Times.
.. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the hacking allegations, and actually inverts the dominant media narrative, as it suggests that Clinton, not Trump, might have been the one colluding with the Russians in the 2016 election.
Why in the world would Donald Trump Jr. take this meeting?
federal election law prohibits soliciting or accepting “anything of value … in connection with” an election from a foreign national.
.. Trump Jr.’s false and misleading statements on his involvement with Russians add to the argument that this is a man behaving as if he had something to hide. Asked by the New York Times in March whether he had ever discussed “government policies related to Russia,” Trump Jr. replied, “a hundred percent no.” Then, confronted by the Times about the Veselnitskaya meeting, he first said the participants “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children,” before acknowledging, the next day, that in fact it concerned opposition research on Clinton.
The latest Russia revelations lay the groundwork for a conspiracy case
Collusion is usually defined as a secret agreement to do something improper. In the criminal-law world, we call that conspiracy. If unlawful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals did take place, criminal conspiracy would be one of the most likely charges.
A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. The federal conspiracy statute prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States, which includes conspiracies to impede the lawful functions of the federal government — such as administering a presidential election.
.. The meeting helps establish a few critical facts. The first is simply that contacts between Russians and campaign officials did take place. If you are seeking to prove a criminal partnership, evidence that the alleged partners had private meetings establishes the opportunity to reach an agreement.
.. The crucial new detail about this meeting is that campaign members now admit it took place after they were told that Veselnitskaya was offering compromising information about Clinton.
.. This fact is significant regardless of what happened at the meeting. Proving a defendant’s state of mind is key in any criminal case. This meeting provides critical evidence about the state of mind of Trump representatives: They were willing to hear what a Russian individual had to offer about their opponent.
.. The first line of defense against a conspiracy allegation typically would be: “That’s ridiculous — I’d never agree to meet with someone from Russia under those circumstances.” That line of defense appears to be gone.
.. Lies or conflicting explanations can be important circumstantial evidence of criminal intent. They may indicate that the truth is something more nefarious that someone does not want to be discovered.
.. We know now that Trump campaign officials were, at the very least, willing to entertain the idea of accepting help from Russian nationals in a U.S. presidential election.