Search This Blog

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Now They're Down to This

The G-20 meeting may have just ended.  The Senate healthcare bill may be getting close to its final destination.  There may be a new cease fire in part of Syria.  The North Koreans may have launched an ICBM capable of carrying a nuclear weapon to American soil.  So what is the media hyperventilating about today?  Last August Donald Trump, Jr. and his brother-in-law Jared Kushner were among a few people who attended a brief meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer.  OMG!

The lawyer did not work for the Russian government or individuals in that government, but she has represented some big Russian companies.  The meeting was a brief introduction and there was no follow-up after it ended.  The President's son said the main topic of discussion was whether or not the Russians would lift the ban on adoptions of Russian children by Americans that was imposed eight years earlier when the USA put sanctions on Russia. 

In the annals of uneventful meetings, this one ranks high.  Nevertheless, the New York Times is having a fit about it.  The investigation looking for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has gone on for so long without producing ANY evidence of such collusion that the Times is desperate to find something, anything that can be twisted into something sinister.  Who knows?  Maybe adoption of Russian orphans by Americans is actually code for hacking the DNC (except that had already happened months earlier.)  Never fear, though, the New York Times is on the job.

Of course, in the last week we learned that the head of Hillary Clinton's campaign really did have significant ties to Russia and that those ties remained in place during the campaign.  John Podesta, it seems, got something like a thirty-five million dollar Russian investment for a company of which he was both a shareholder and a director.  Somehow the Russian involvement with the company did not make its way to Podesta's financial disclosures according to reports.  Now there's a questionable link that could indicate some sort of collusion.  Of course, since it is Hillary's campaign, you can be sure that the NY Times will never mention that story again.

No comments: