The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

For many months, Donald J. Trump and his closest associates have assured Americans that their presidential campaign had “absolutely no contact” with any Russians seeking to influence the course of the 2016 presidential election. Among those who issued the most vehement denials were Paul Manafort, the Washington influence peddler who served as campaign manager, and eldest son Donald J. Trump, Jr., who called any such suggestions “disgusting.”

Truly disgusting are the brazen lies uttered by all of these individuals. Everyone now knows about the June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower where Trump, Jr., Manafort, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner hosted Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin.

Considering the history of falsehoods and evasions by Trump, Jr., Kushner, and Manafort — plus the strong incentive to conceal wrongdoing — their accounts must be treated with profound skepticism. But both Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin (an immigrant who once served in Russian military intelligence) say that they came to offer “evidence” of alleged offenses by Democratic donors to Clinton.

And both say they sought to persuade the Trump camp that the Magnitsky Act of 2012 — an American law intended to sanction the officials who imprisoned and killed Sergei Magnitsky, a tax lawyer and auditor who exposed massive fraud committed by Russian bureaucrats and businessmen — should be repealed.

To many Americans, that must sound like an obscure topic, distant from American politics. Certainly Trump, Jr. and the White House have attempted to spin it that way. Yet the sanctions imposed by the Magnitsky Act, a statute under consideration in other countries, are a major irritant to Putin.

Certainly the Magnitsky angle fits neatly into the narrative outlined in the emails between Trump Jr. and Robert Goldstone, the publicist who set up the Trump Tower meeting. His first message indicates a series of connections that began with a Kremlin official whom Goldstone calls “the crown prosecutor” — apparently indicating Kremlin prosecutor general Yuri Chaika. That chain extends through billionaire developer, Trump friend, and Putin ally Aras Agalarov, to Agalarov’s son Emin, and to Emin’s employee Goldstone, who wrote:

Emin just called and asked me to contact you…The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

Since the meeting’s exposure, Trump, Jr. and Goldstone have trashed Veselnitskaya, claiming she pretended to have Clinton dirt that she didn’t actually possess. Instead, she supposedly made a few “inane” remarks about the Democrat’s campaign financing. Then she droned on about the injustice of the Magnitsky Act.

Both Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin have more or less  confirmed this version of events, while passively enduring Trump, Jr.’s insults.

But that convenient narrative really makes no sense. Why would a sophisticated Moscow attorney like Veselnitskaya annoy the Trumps with a fake offer of opposition research? Why would she impose an arcane policy issue on a campaign that was preparing for an uphill general election? Why humiliate Agalarov by staging such a charade? And why embarrass Chaika, whose reported patronage has been important to her career?

And what about Emin and Goldstone? Did Trump, Jr. complain to them about that “inane” June 9 meeting? Did they apologize for wasting his time?

If Trump, Jr. truly aspires to transparency, he should post all of the relevant emails that followed the irritating episode he describes.

Because subsequent events suggest that may not be what happened at all.

Months later, in March 2017, the new president phoned New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who refused to return that improper call. The very next day Trump fired Bharara, whom he had previously asked to stay on.

Then in May, the Justice Department abruptly settled a major Russian money-laundering case that Bharara had been preparing for trial, against a company called Prevezon. The settlement cost Prevezon only $6 million, or less than half the original amount demanded by the government lawsuit.

Prevezon was among the companies alleged to have received proceeds from the tax scheme uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, Its principals wanted to avoid a public trial that would revisit the Magnitsky case. The Justice Department declared the settlement a victory, but so did the lawyers representing Prevezon and its owners.

And among those lawyers just happens to be the annoying Ms. Veselnitskaya.

Such circumstances bring back the old days in the Kremlin, when Communist hacks prefaced almost any political observation with the phrase, “It is no coincidence.” Or is it? That is now a pressing question for the special counsel and Congressional investigators.

Header photo by Wikimedia Commons.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Dr. Mehmet Oz and Sean Hannity

Youtube Screenshot

Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity is priming his audience to see election fraud in any defeat for Dr. Mehmet Oz, his favored candidate who currently leads the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania with two percent of votes outstanding. If the fast-closing hedge funder Dave McCormick takes the lead and the Oz camp claims the election has been stolen, it could set up a potentially explosive proxy war with Hannity’s colleague Laura Ingraham, whose Fox program favors McCormick and has suggested he is likely to prevail when all the votes are counted.

The GOP primary was a chaotic slugfest that split Fox’s slate of pro-GOP hosts in an unusually public way. Hannity was Oz’s most prominent supporter, reportedly securing the support of former President Donald Trump and using his program to endorse the TV personality, give him a regular platform, and target the challenge from right-wing commentator and Fox & Friends regular Kathy Barnette. Ingraham, meanwhile, used her Fox program (which airs in the hour following Hannity’s) to promote McCormick, criticize Oz, and defend Barnette.

Keep reading... Show less
Youtube Screenshot

Overturning Roe v. Wade is very unpopular, yet another poll confirms. Nearly two out of three people, or 64 percent, told the NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll that Roe should not be overturned, including 62 percent of independents. The poll also includes some good news for Democrats.

According to the poll, the prospect of the Supreme Court striking down Roe in the most extreme way is motivating Democratic voters more than Republicans: Sixty-six percent of Democrats say it makes them more likely to vote in November compared with 40 percent of Republicans. That echoes a recent NBC poll finding a larger rise in enthusiasm about voting among Democrats than Republicans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}