The story of President Trump's son meeting with a Russian has now officially jumped the shark. The media is reporting that the man who supposedly set up the meeting posted a photo on his facebook account that showed him wearing a t-shirt that said something that began with the word "Russia". No doubt, the word on the shirt worn by a guy who knows the President's son is supposed to be proof that the President colluded with the Russians. It's not. It is, however, proof that the media has lost its mind when it comes to anything involving Russia which is connected to anything Trump.
Think about the story. There is no involvement by any person from the Russian government. Some stories have called the Russian lawyer who went to the meeting to talk about adoptions a "Russian official". She isn't and she never was a government official. She's a private citizen who is a successful lawyer in Moscow. That means she represents clients who have some connection to the government, since every successful business in Moscow has some sort of connection to the government. The Kremlin denies having any connection with her (but, of course it would). She denies having any connection with the Kremlin (but, of course, she would.) But here's the problem for the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists: so far no one has shown any connection between the lawyer and the Kremlin. It's just not enough that she's Russian. Yesterday, I spoke to a woman from Brazil. That doesn't mean I met with a representative of the Brazilian government.
Then there's the point that no information was given to the President's son at the meeting. Normally one would think that collusion would involve at least actually passing information. Indeed, not only was no info passed at the meeting, but there is also no proof that info was ever passed.
Put this together and what you have is that there's nothing to this story. The media is beyond ridiculous in its coverage. The NY Times is hyperventilating today about an email that supposedly exists but which no one has seen. The email purportedly told the President's son that the lawyer had negative info gathered by the Russian government on Hillary. So where is the email? No one seems to know. And if there is such an email, does it convert this meeting into something sinister? Nope. For that to happen, there would have to be proof that something sinister actually happened at the meeting (which there isn't).
Think about the story. There is no involvement by any person from the Russian government. Some stories have called the Russian lawyer who went to the meeting to talk about adoptions a "Russian official". She isn't and she never was a government official. She's a private citizen who is a successful lawyer in Moscow. That means she represents clients who have some connection to the government, since every successful business in Moscow has some sort of connection to the government. The Kremlin denies having any connection with her (but, of course it would). She denies having any connection with the Kremlin (but, of course, she would.) But here's the problem for the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists: so far no one has shown any connection between the lawyer and the Kremlin. It's just not enough that she's Russian. Yesterday, I spoke to a woman from Brazil. That doesn't mean I met with a representative of the Brazilian government.
Then there's the point that no information was given to the President's son at the meeting. Normally one would think that collusion would involve at least actually passing information. Indeed, not only was no info passed at the meeting, but there is also no proof that info was ever passed.
Put this together and what you have is that there's nothing to this story. The media is beyond ridiculous in its coverage. The NY Times is hyperventilating today about an email that supposedly exists but which no one has seen. The email purportedly told the President's son that the lawyer had negative info gathered by the Russian government on Hillary. So where is the email? No one seems to know. And if there is such an email, does it convert this meeting into something sinister? Nope. For that to happen, there would have to be proof that something sinister actually happened at the meeting (which there isn't).
No comments:
Post a Comment