RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Saletan writes: "Trump, his aides, and their allies in the right-wing media have presented a flurry of excuses. The excuses are even more damning than the emails."

White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders makes excuses for the Don Jr. meeting at a press briefing on Wednesday in Washington. (photo: Getty Images)
White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders makes excuses for the Don Jr. meeting at a press briefing on Wednesday in Washington. (photo: Getty Images)

How They Justify Collusion

By William Saletan, Slate

17 July 17


onald Trump’s presidential campaign has been caught colluding with Russia. A chain of emails shows that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. accepted a friend’s offer to meet secretly with a Russian government emissary to help his father become president of the United States. The friend, a Trump family business associate named Rob Goldstone, told Don Jr. that a “Russian government attorney” would bring “sensitive information [as] part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, accompanied by Goldstone and a Russian American lobbyist who used to work in counterintelligence for the KGB, met with Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort in Trump Tower.

The meeting remained secret until this week, when its details and the emails were leaked to the New York Times. In response, Trump, his aides, and their allies in the right-wing media have presented a flurry of excuses. The excuses are even more damning than the emails. They expose the nihilism of the Trump family and its allies. Here’s the list.

1. Nothing happened. This is Trump Sr.’s primary defense. “Nothing came of the meeting,” he says. Don Jr., White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway, and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow make the same case.

Why did nothing come of the meeting? Because, as Don Jr. and the others explain, Veselnitskaya had “no helpful or meaningful information.” If she had offered something useful, the campaign would have used it. This isn’t just speculation. Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump’s campaign manager at the time, essentially confirms it: “If this was a meeting that had any information that would have been relevant to the campaign or could have potentially impacted the outcome of the election, I would have been made aware of it. President Trump would have been made aware of it. … In the middle of the campaign, you’re looking for an edge.” Lewandowski offers this statement as proof of the meeting’s unimportance. Instead, what he reveals is that the Trump campaign had no compunction about colluding.

2. Russia wasn’t a big story at the time. Trump says the meeting “was before Russia fever.” Don Jr. and other surrogates float the same excuse. But a conscientious American citizen doesn’t need headlines or polls to warn him that it’s wrong to meet with a “Russian government attorney” bringing “sensitive information [as] part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” When Trump and his allies say Russian interference wasn’t a big story back then, what they’re really conveying is that they lack an internal sense of fidelity to the United States. They saw Hillary Clinton, not Vladimir Putin, as their adversary.

3. Trump’s aides didn’t notice what was written or said. Goldstone’s emails explicitly described Veselnitskaya’s links to the Russian government. They were forwarded to Kushner and Manafort with the header: “Russia – Clinton – private and confidential.” But according to Laura Ingraham, who regularly appears on Fox News to audition as Trump’s next press secretary, Don Jr., Kushner, and Manafort probably didn’t read the emails, even though they showed up at the meeting time specified therein. “These guys are getting thousands of emails,” Ingraham argues. “I don’t know how much they read.”

Trump claims that Kushner “left after a few minutes” and that Manafort “was not really focused on the meeting,” since he “was playing with his iPhone.” Jason Chaffetz, who stepped down last month as the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, concurs. It’s laughable, in retrospect, that Trump, Chaffetz, and other Republicans spent two years accusing Hillary Clinton of carelessness about emails.

4. Veselnitskaya didn’t work for Putin. Contrary to investigative reports and the plain warning in Goldstone’s emails, Trump’s defenders insist Veselnitskaya was “just a lobbyist” and a private attorney. Trump says she was “not a government lawyer.” Sean Hannity says her denial that she worked for the Kremlin is conclusive. Sekulow and Lewandowski go further, implying that anyone who questions a “meeting with a person who’s of Russian descent” is a bigot.

Meanwhile, Chaffetz, Tucker Carlson, and other Trump backers laugh off Goldstone as a harmless “music publicist.” Ingraham says it was natural for Don Jr. to accept his meeting pitch, since Goldstone “was a friend of his who had business in Russia and had business with the Trump Corporation.” The Trump camp seems obtuse or indifferent to what U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized for the past year: Such business connections are exactly how Russia recruits foreign collaborators.

5. Russia isn’t a threat. According to Trump’s fans, collusion with Putin is no big deal, because Russia isn’t a serious adversary. Nothing the campaign did can be treason, says Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, since we aren’t at war. Carlson adds that other countries are far more dangerous: “The idea that Russia is in the top five is absurd.” The vigilance of John McCain and Mitt Romney has given way to the cult of Trump.

6. Opposition research is normal. Trump, Sanders, Lewandowski, and others harp on this point. It’s true, but they use it to blur the distinction between soliciting campaign dirt, which is normal, and soliciting dirt from a hostile regime, which isn’t. Sekulow argues that “in the heat of the campaign,” it’s natural to welcome such information, regardless of the source. In Trumpworld, national loyalty is an afterthought.

7. Other countries meddle, too. Self-styled conservative intellectuals don’t like to shill openly for Putin. Rather than discount Russian interference, they deflect the question, arguing that other governments also interfere in our elections. Michelle Malkin says we should focus on “other countries that have been meddling in our affairs, that pose much greater threats. I mean, where are the rest of the media to talk about how Mexico has interfered in our elections?” Yes, she really said that.

8. Russia is no worse than Ukraine. Nothing Trump did with Russia is as bad as the Democrats’ alleged collaboration with Ukraine, according to Sanders, Conway, Sekulow, and others. The Ukraine story, reported by Politico several months ago, is that in March 2016, an “operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” The Trump team has wildly distorted the story. But their use of it tells you a lot about their indifference to the distinction between aggressors, such as Russia, and countries that seek help in defending themselves, such as Ukraine. Trump’s surrogates say that treating Russian influence as worse than Ukrainian is a double standard. Newt Gingrich says it’s like cops ignoring “a bank robbery to grab one of us for jaywalking.”

In fact, Trump’s aides are attacking Ukraine precisely because Ukraine exposed the Trump campaign’s financial ties to Russia. At a White House briefing on Wednesday, Sanders charged, “Information passed to the DNC from the Ukrainian government directly targeted members of the Trump campaign.” Conway followed up, alleging that the Ukrainians “hurt people on the Trump campaign.” That’s true: The Ukrainians helped to expose Manafort, who had taken money from Putin’s allies to help Russia control Ukraine. When Hannity and other Trump apologists accuse Ukraine of a “foreign plot,” they’re complaining that Manafort’s cover was blown.

9. America is no better than Russia. According to Gingrich, Sekulow, and Hannity, Democrats have no right to complain about Russian interference, since Israeli peace groups funded by President Obama’s State Department later worked against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sekulow fumes: “Talk about engaging in electioneering in a foreign country!” For decades, Republicans accused liberals of apologizing for America. Now, in Trump’s defense, they’re doing exactly what they say the left has done: complaining that we have no business criticizing other countries for the same things we do, even in cases where our way of intervening—for example, funding political organizations rather than hacking or peddling opposition research—differs from theirs..

10. Foreign influence isn’t an American concern. Conway complains that “people in the media” are talking “more about Russia than America.” She says Americans want to “move on” and talk about domestic issues. By this logic, infiltration isn’t worth discussing, precisely because it comes from abroad.

11. The Trump–Russia meeting was an Obama setup. Trump says former Attorney General Loretta Lynch let Veselnitskaya into the United States, enabling her to meet with Don Jr. Attorneys for Trump note that Veselnitskaya once hired Fusion GPS, a research firm “retained by Democratic operatives.” The claim about Lynch is false, and the chain of links from Veselnitskaya to Democrats is circuitous. But that hasn’t stopped Hannity and others from suggesting that Obama orchestrated the meeting to frame Don Jr. These people will believe any conspiracy, as long as it’s about Obama and not Putin.

12. Don Jr. came clean. Trump praises his son’s “transparency” in releasing the emails. Sanders says they were “voluntarily disclosed.” Conway, Sekulow, Lewandowski, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee exalt Don Jr. for his “refreshing” candor. This is all bullshit. Don Jr. released the emails on Twitter because a reporter told him that the Times was about to publish them. He asked the Times to wait for his comment, and he used that pause to sandbag them. Transparency is just another lie.

13. The bluntness of the collusion proves it wasn’t collusion. Legal commentator Geraldo Rivera, a longtime Trump pal, says Don Jr.’s explicit email message—replying “I love it” to Goldstein’s offer on behalf of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”—is too crude to be devious. “Sometimes when what you do is so overt,” Rivera argues, it’s “exculpatory. It shows your innocence of mind.” With this maneuver, the Trump camp covers both scenarios: The collusion was either too vague to be incriminating or too obvious to be believable.

14. It’s not illegal. Trump’s advocates are full of creative arguments. Conway says there are no “damages” to adjudicate. Hannity says the Federal Election Campaign Act, even if Don Jr. violated it, is “not criminal.” Jarrett argues that “there is no collusion statute, except in antitrust,” and that “foreign nationals can provide personal services” under federal law. On Friday morning, before we learned that a former KGB man had attended the meeting with Trump’s campaign brass, Rivera added: “Even if there was a KGB killer in that room, there’s nothing criminal about what Donald Trump Jr. did in taking that meeting.” In the moral calculus of Trump and his allies, there’s no higher standard than escaping prosecution.

15. The meeting was a one-off. For months, Conway said there was no evidence of collusion. Now that the meeting with Veselnitskaya has been exposed, she says there’s no “hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion.” Given the Trump team’s trail of lies, there’s no reason to trust that the collusion stopped with this meeting. But Conway and others are proving that there’s one thing we can count on: As we discover more, they’ll keep moving the goalposts. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+13 # sbessho 2017-07-17 10:18
How odd! These are exactly the arguments we see from the trolls here in the RSN comments section. Hmmm . . .
+19 # nogardflow 2017-07-17 10:45
What's sad is I don't think they really understand that what they did was wrong, but if they did know it was wrong then they just don't care. These people don't understand patriotism and lack the morals necessary to lead.
+11 # CL38 2017-07-19 08:04
They do understand--the y're adults. They've chosen a path to personal enrichment and power over doing the right things for the right reasons. Nothing else matters to people like this.
+1 # vicnada 2017-07-20 12:23
It's way wrong to think "they didn't really understand that what they did was wrong". True, sociopaths take their "right" to commit amoral acts for granted. But they do so knowingly. Their only concern is not to be caught or recognized as the sociopaths they are. This article admirably catalogs their effort to gull us (didn't Don Jr. act with such candor!)by masking themselves and their behavior as "just one of us". They are not. We need to wake up. They are lying. Purposefully. Cynically. Treasonously.
+17 # Jaax88 2017-07-17 11:05
Why believe these pro-trump people in the first place. Again and again and again they have proven to tell lies, distort the true facts, provide implausible spin favorable to trump and family. And these speakers are either paid by or employed by or for trump or have given their allegiance to trump.
+6 # dotlady 2017-07-17 11:15
I'm thinking, hrummppff to this whole issue. This is how the worldwide mafia works.
+17 # kalpal 2017-07-17 11:30
The Russian lawyer does not speak English. Does Manafort speak Russian? Does Jared Kushner? Does Don Jr.?

The notion that a discussion that was unproductive occurred is BS. Whoever else present as a translator was not mentioned by the transparent Don Jr.

Lies and more lies are the essence of Trump's life and administration.
0 # thehodges1 2017-07-18 23:55
Lies and more lies are the essence of Trump's life and administration.
More than anything when America was a Giant in Global Business Most countries taught English
-18 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-07-17 11:33
1. "Trump’s presidential campaign has been caught colluding with Russia." No, the campaign was caught emailing a British private citizen who made false claims about Russia, and then meeting with a private lawyer.

2. "a Russian government emissary " No. She was a private lawyer, who also happened to be connected to Rob Goldstone and Christohper Steele, the latter was working for the Clinton campaign to produce opposition research on Trump.

3. "a “Russian government attorney” would bring “sensitive information" No, the information would come from the "Crown Prosecutor of Russia." No such office and no such person exists. Goldstone did not mention anything that the lawyer would bring. He calls her a "government attorney" but he is wrong about that. Probably he is lying to make his case seem more important.

At some point, the Russiagators need to get the simple facts of the case straight. They can interpret the facts in any way they choose. But hyping and inflating the facts just makes them look dishonest and, frankly, corrupt.

Goldstone said this -- "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" but this is just his opinion or his assertion. It is not a fact. He does not speak for the Russian government. I could say, "the British government pulled out all the stops in order to help Hillary win." People can say what they want. but fact are facts.
+1 # vicnada 2017-07-20 12:43
As much as I admire Dostoevsky, I wonder at your capacity to parse this President's crimes in such a way that they will never be punished. Is it not true that most criminals are convicted on evidence that is circumstantial? that few are caught "red-handed"? In this case, the crowd of circumstances that point any reasoning person to expect high crimes and misdemeanors would leave Raskolinkov red-faced. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
+16 # elizabethblock 2017-07-17 11:39
You all know the classic definition of chutzpah: a child murdering his parents and then asking for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan.
For years, my own definition was Spiro Agnew - remember him? Nixon's VP, who had to resign because he had taken bribes, an accusation to which he pleaded no contest. He asked the Maryland Bar Association not to disbar him because he hadn't been convicted of a criminal offense.
Now I think it's Sean Hannity saying that the Federal Election Campaign Act, even if Don Jr. violated it, is “not criminal.”

Friends, let's not forget that this kind of behavior is NOT NORMAL.
+8 # GDW 2017-07-17 11:46
Frank Rich wrote a good article comparing this to Watergate. At first it was just a "3rd rate burglary' until some reporters did some digging. The longer this goes on the more information comes out I remember Watergate and it took over a year to get to the bottom. This is just beginning, I say to let the investigation continue,
+6 # RWPrice 2017-07-17 11:50
Great piece in today's The Intercept by Glen Greenwald. Since RSN seems to be at war with The Intercept, thought I would bring this to reader's attention - it brings an important perspective to this whole Russia business and gives background on why it joins neocons and Hillarycrats. A pox on both their camps!
+4 # Robbee 2017-07-17 12:09
1. i didn't do it;
2. nobody saw me do it;
3. you can't prove nothin'.
- bart simpson

to this, add barak or obama did it - or, if it's something that arguably, or even inarguably, could have been done, barak or obama did not do it!
-4 # Robbee 2017-07-17 12:10
to this, add barak or hillary did it - or, if it's something that arguably, or even inarguably, could have been done, barak or hillary did not do it!
-12 # harleysch 2017-07-17 13:03
I guess the Putin haters will never give up. The fact that nothing came of the meeting is a legitimate excuse. One must have a very broad meaning of the word "collusion" to say the meeting proves anything, except that Don, Jr., might have been willing to collude. But there was nothing to collude with, he was given false information by a BRITISH figure with ties to Fusion GPS.

Find some real evidence that there was active, hands-on collaboration with Putin operatives, and put it on the table. Sorry, but there has been none of that yet.

The "opposition research" question is interesting. Didn't the Clinton campaign hire the company of Christopher Steele, an "ex"-MI6 operative, who claimed he was in touch with "Russian" sources, to prepare the Trump Moscow "sex" dossier? Given the recent record of British intelligence working with U.S. intelligence, cooking up lies that have gotten us caught up in never-ending wars (Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name a few), maybe collusion with the British is a more serious threat to our nation.
+8 # Salburger 2017-07-18 05:12
conspiracy to commit a violation of the law is a crime even if the conspiracy fails to actually do so.
-4 # librarian1984 2017-07-18 09:59
So now that the Clintons and Democrats are beginning to appear in this investigation, will we pursue those leads with equal fervor?
+3 # CL38 2017-07-19 08:09
How silently the press observes the Clinton/DNC/DWS theft of the "Democratic" nominee election.

The MSM were complicit then, they're complicit now.
+1 # Eddie G 2017-07-17 13:14
A disappointing and inflammatory piece of propaganda. About half-way through I started skimming instead of reading carefully.
Israel attempted to interfere in the US election in 2012 - remember Netanyahu's address to congress? Not much fuss about that.
Russia is less the aggressor in Ukraine than the USA, which aided and abetted the fascist coup in 2012 or whenever it was.
And given the US interference in Russian elections in the 90's (in favor of the clown Yetsin) I'd say: Even if there was some effort to influence the 2016 election, it was lost by Hillary Clinton because she was a terrible candidate. The Russian efforts were no more than a drop in the bucket. Get over it.
Democrats, fire Tom Perez! Run someone who can win next time!
+12 # Farafalla 2017-07-17 13:20
This story is only a part of the Russia-Trump relationship. When you get into years of Trump business deals, you can learn that the Russian mob has huge sums laundered through his businesses. This is why he hides his tax returns. See this important article in the New Republic:
-8 # ericlipps 2017-07-17 13:34
Unfortunately, there are people who post here regularly who apparently swallow all 12 points whole and spit venom at anyone who doesn't. I don't think I need to name names.
+10 # Texas Aggie 2017-07-17 14:09
how Mexico has interfered in our elections?”

No, bless your little heart. You have it backwards. The Mexican elections are full of US interference, specifically the republican party. They have funded right wing politicians in violation of Mexican law. They have worked with Mexican election campaigns to elect right wing politicians. So Malkin, just be quiet.

And the argument that anyone would have done it is a two edged sword. Remember the woman who was charged for laughing at the comment that Sessions upholds the law regardless of race? Anyone who heard that would just roll on the floor LMAO. So how can that be something to bring charges against?
-6 # punditalia 2017-07-17 14:35
Sometimes one can be on the right side of an argument but present the case so badly that it ends up discrediting the side making the argument. That seems to be the situation here.
+12 # oakes721 2017-07-17 19:04
The reign of Tromp is a declaration of undeclared WAR on America ~ where the reversal of every civil office and liberty and policy are being TROMP, TROMP TROMPED with a non-stop Blitzkrieg of atrocities. The vicious attempts to loot Social Security and other working and beneficial programs undercuts all thoughts of achieving PEACE anywhere on Earth...ever.
When Little Tromp tripped up Big TROMP, someone blinked. The momentary hesitation of the ongoing shock treatment has given rise to a beleaguered hope that Justice might yet prevail and these racketeers be put behind prison walls (which Mexico among others, would be pleased to pay for).
+2 # chapdrum 2017-07-18 17:15
"Every picture tells a story, don't it?"
0 # Jaax88 2017-07-20 23:46
Why believe these pro-trump people in the first place. Again and again and again they have proven to tell lies, distort the true facts, provide implausible spin favorable to trump and family. And these speakers are either paid by or employed by or for trump or have given their allegiance to trump.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.