Russia hysteria continues to sweep the media and the Democrat Party.
Will there be a smoking gun in the Russia scandal that finally takes down Donald Trump?
One email may finally reveal the truth.
The New York Times and the rest of the anti-Trump media have focused on a meeting Donald Trump, Jr. held with a Russian lawyer who claimed she had information that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were colluding with the Russian government.
The meeting quickly ended after it became apparent she had no information and instead wanted to lobby for the end of sanctions concerning Russian adoption.
Multiple pundits and officials within the administration such as Chief of Staff Reince Priebus dismissed the story as a “nothing burger.”
Now the Times is reporting that the publicist who set up the meeting – Rob Gladstone – emailed Trump to claim the source of the lawyer’s information was the Russian government.
The New York Times reported:
“Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.
The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.
Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.
There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. The meeting took place less than a week before it was widely reported that Russian hackers had infiltrated the committee’s servers.”
But is this story really the bombshell it’s cracked up to be?
It looks like another case of anonymous sources telling liberal reporters what they want to hear without providing any evidence to back up the sensational charges in the headline.
One big problem with the story is the Times contradicted their reporting.
The Times reported:
“It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others…
…But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.”
How can Gladstone not know the origin of the information he passed on, while at the same time asserting it was part of the Russian government’s effort to aid the Trump campaign?
Gladstone also denied on record having any knowledge of Russian government involvement.
This report raises far more questions than it answers.
It still provides no evidence of collusion or any wrongdoing.
The Times even notes that there is no evidence to tie this email to the hacks of the Democratic National Committee.
This story – like all the previous fake news regarding Russia reporting – relies on anonymous sources.
And in this case, the reporters did not see the email.
The story hinges on reporters taking as gospel the word of sources without being personally able to vet the document in question.
This type of reporting has led to numerous embarrassments for the so-called “mainstream” media.
We will keep you updated on any new developments in this story.