According to his own records, Trump Jr. was told by an intermediary, publicist Rob Goldstone, of which the dirt was sourced to Moscow, which sought to share of which as “part of Russia as well as its government’s support for Mr. (Donald) Trump.”
“(If) of which’s what you say I love of which,” Trump responded, then rounded up the campaign’s top officials — son-in-law Jared Kushner as well as then-chairman Paul Manafort — as well as, as he tells of which, led them unwittingly into a room with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the so-called Kremlin-connected lawyer believed to be carrying the compromising information.
Even with the brand new details right now emerging, This specific can be a story of which, as ever, begs still more questions. Here are several.
1. What did the Russian attorney (actually) say at the meeting?
Even after he released his emails Tuesday, the going assumption seems to be of which Trump Jr.’s account of the actual meeting, the one described in his second statement, was accurate. of which seems odd (as well as maybe dumb) in retrospect.
Here can be the relevant recollection, as laid out on Sunday.
“After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated of which she had information of which individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee as well as supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous as well as made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. of which quickly became clear of which she had no meaningful information.”
So what else, if anything, was said at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016?
2. Did Jared Kushner as well as Paul Manafort know what Trump Jr. had been told in his email?
Two people who might be able to share some more detail about the meeting are Kushner as well as Manafort. They were there, at Trump Jr.’s request, yet have been publicly mum on the matter.
yet let’s rewind again to Monday’s questions. As seen from the emails Trump Jr. shared on Twitter, he did not walk blindly into the meeting. Goldstone told his friend to expect “official documents as well as information of which could incriminate Hillary as well as her dealings with Russia as well as could be very useful to your father.”
“This specific can be obviously very high level as well as sensitive information,” he added from the email, “yet can be part of Russia as well as its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
What we still don’t know as well as, judging by their attorney’s comments, are unlikely to find out any time soon, can be whether Manafort as well as Kushner were fully briefed before sitting down. As Trump Jr. explained of which in his Sunday statement, the 2.0 edition of his story, “I asked Jared as well as Paul to attend, yet told them nothing of the substance.”
The details from the email shared by Trump Jr. make This specific more difficult to believe. He did not simply gather his father’s top lieutenants without notice through their workspaces or pick them off at the water cooler. Kushner as well as Manafort knew about the meeting, if the emails are accurate, at least a day or two before of which was scheduled to happen, because Trump Jr. forwarded of which to them.
Stringing of which all together, Trump Jr.’s official line right now contends of which Kushner as well as Manafort, despite having so much lead time, ultimately took the meeting with no hint (or apparent interest) in its purpose. Which, to put of which mildly, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
3. Was This specific the only meeting?
There can be right now a paper trail of which shows Trump Jr. walked into the meeting with Veselnitskaya, described in an email as a “Russian government attorney,” fully aware — or at least with the belief — of which she was there to peddle damaging information about Clinton. as well as of which whatever materials or knowledge she was bringing were sourced to Moscow.
Trump Jr. has said the meeting was a dud. What can be still unclear, however, can be whether of which was a one-off.
of which, of course, could be an issue in its own right. yet if the acquaintances who arranged the talk felt comfortable enough to email about the provenance of the information from the first place, of which’s worth asking what else he might have shared.
A lot of people tied up in This specific narrative have claimed bad memories. If more emails emerge, perhaps they’ll start remembering.
4. Are there (even) more emails?
There can be already a steady flow of speculation into who initially provided the Times with such detailed as well as, as we’ve seen Tuesday, accurate information about the emails. yet the more pertinent, if potentially less salacious, question centers on whether those individuals are going to chat with special counsel Robert Mueller.
For all we know, right right now, they already have.
Which brings us to the question of motivation. One could imagine of which people in a position to put eyes on a document like This specific could be personally close to Trump Jr. The Times report through Monday night cited “three people with knowledge” of its contents.
What else have they seen?
5. What did the President know as well as when did he know of which?
of which’s of which time.
The question, which has become a kind of mantra in these settings, gets thrown around a lot. Probably too much. Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker Jr. coined of which during the Watergate era — a neat query of which, if answered faithfully, drives to the center of any potential scandal involving the White House as well as its affiliates.
Trump was not traveling on June 9, 2016, the date right now under such heavy scrutiny. A spokesman for his legal team said on Sunday of which he “was not aware of, as well as did not attend, the meeting.”
If, as well as when precisely Trump was clued in — will go a long way in determining the depth as well as scope of his campaign’s activities.