ALERT

Listen Now:



2245

I Highly Doubt the New York Times Story About Donald Trump, Jr.

By  |  July 10, 2017, 05:00am  |  @ewerickson


The New York Times has a very salacious story that Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Russian lawyer in 2016 who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed the meeting took place, but states that no damaging information was handed over. The Times would have you believe this is proof of collaboration between Russia and the Trump campaign. I would not be so sure if only because Matt Apuzzo is one of the reporters.

On December 12, 2015, Apuzzo co-wrote a story at the New York Times reporting the FBI missed or ignored social media posts by the San Bernardino terrorist’s wife. James Comey, then the FBI Director, denounced the story. The New York Times public editor got involved and took the reporters to ask for relying on anonymous sources.

On February 14, 2017, Apuzzo participated in this story about Russian intelligence communications with the Trump campaign team. James Comey, again, refuted the New York Times story. In this case, Comey did it under oath before Congress.

Now Apuzzo has yet another story telling liberals exactly what they believe. In the story, the reporters write this:

It is unclear whether the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually produced the promised compromising information about Mrs. Clinton. But the people interviewed by The Times about the meeting said the expectation was that she would do so.

Yet again they are relying on unnamed sources who are speculating about things they do not know. In fact, the Times names the individuals who were in the meeting: Manafort, Kushner, and Trump, Jr. The names were confirmed by Trump, Jr. I highly doubt any of them leaked, which would leave the Russians as the leaker if there was one. And the Times is using these stories to claim we cannot trust the Russians, so I doubt they leaked.

This is again a situation where someone is leaking exactly what the left wants to hear in order to damage the President. It seems just way too convenient. Yes, there was a meeting with a Russian lawyer. Hillary Clinton’s campaign no doubt met with unsavory characters trying to ruin Trump. Lest we forget, there was a British spy involved feeding dirt about Trump to people and much, if not all, of that dossier turned out not to be true.

So because the one was British that is okay but because the other was Russian that is bad? This is ridiculous.

Both campaigns were digging up dirt on the other. There is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the FBI. The story itself makes pretty clear the President did not know. This is only a story because the left needs to believe something other than Clinton and Mook lost Clinton that campaign.