(National Sentinel)Â Election 2016:Â The insane Left-wing mediaâ€™s latest assault against President Donald J. Trump has been launched not against him but against his son, Don Jr., in what many see as the latest desperate attempt to perpetuate the myth that the Trump campaign â€œcolludedâ€ with Russia to â€œsteal the electionâ€ from Hillary Clinton.
A series of reports by The New York Times over the weekend and into Monday basically make three claims: 1) A Trump Tower meeting shortly after Trump won the GOP nomination was attended by Don Jr., then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and a Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya; 2) the premise of the meeting was for Veselnitskaya to pass along damaging information gathered by the Russian government about Clinton; and 3) Don Jr. had been told in advance, via email, the purpose of the meeting was to receive said information. (Related: Did the Deep State plan itâ€™s bogus â€œRussia narrativeâ€ to discredit Trump because they believed ALL along he would BEAT HillaryÂ Clinton?)
Mind you, as usual nobody is talking about the fact that information used in these reports was illegally leaked to the Times, but thatâ€™s par for the course.
Anyway, since the allegations surfaced, Ben Shapiro, writing at the Daily Wire noted regarding Don Jr.:
Trump Jr. originally didnâ€™t report the meeting. Then he said that the meeting was about adoptions. Then he changed his story again and said that the meeting was supposed to be about opposition research on Hillary Clinton, but he made no reference to whether he knew Veselnitskaya had information from the Russian government.
Smoking gun, right? Collusion proven, right?
For one, even the Times acknowledged no information regarding Clinton or her campaign was ever divulged. For another, Veselnitskaya told NBC News Tuesday she had no connection to the Kremlin and met with Don Jr. and staff for the purpose of discussing a U.S. law called the Magnitsky Act.
Get DC Comics t-shirtsÂ here
â€œI never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,â€ she said, then added cryptically: â€œIt is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.â€
As this continues to play out, one thing is clear to constitutional law professor and expert Jonathan Turley: Nothing thatâ€™s being reported involving Don Jr. and associates is illegal, nor does it prove â€œcollusion.â€ Itâ€™s just more media smoke and mirrors.
â€œThere is not a clear criminal act in such a meeting based on the information that we have. Moreover, it is not necessarily unprecedented,â€ Turley wrote on his blog. â€œThere is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner.â€
Turley hit back against unfounded allegations of â€œtreasonâ€ leveled on Trump-hating MSNBC by Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, pointing out that such a dramatic charge, to be accurate, involves â€œâ€˜levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.â€™â€
â€œTo say that this type of meeting even borders on treason is quite a departure from the language and cases governing that crime,â€ Turley wrote.
To that end, as Shapiro pointed out, Veselnitskaya has said that Don Jr. was willing to meet, but that Kushner left the short 20-minute meeting after a few minutes, and Manafort was disinterested, ignoring her conversation as he spoke on the phone. Furthermore, Don Jr. said the information she discussed was vague and contradictory, and that she never did supply any usable opposition research.
Furthermore, as The Daily Callerâ€™s Peter Hasson wrote Tuesday, the Clinton campaign attempted to obtain Trump-related opposition research using Ukrainian government officials.
So, sorry Painter â€” no treason.
And no â€œcollusion,â€ either. Try as the Left-wing hacks at the Times may, putting lipstick on a pig doesnâ€™t a pageant winner make.