Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, and this helpful chart…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Shattering the Decade of "New Normal" Economic Sluggishness

Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, and this helpful chart from the U.S. Senate's Joint Economic Committee illustrates why our economy suddenly turbocharged over the past two years from its decade of sluggishness that we were told was the "new normal":

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="Turbocharging the U.S. Consumer Economy"][/caption]…[more]

October 15, 2018 • 11:46 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Is the Trump Tower Meeting Really Proof of Collusion? Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, May 23 2018
There's no evidence that anyone proposed a deal; instead, the Russians got in the door, made their pitch and left when the Trump team wasn't interested.

If there is an Exhibit A in the case that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to fix the presidential election, it is the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between three top campaign officials  Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner  and a group of Russians who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

And if there is a key document about the meeting  an Exhibit A of Exhibit A  it is the email from British music promoter Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr. proposing the get-together. Read in light of the accusations leveled against President Trump and his campaign after the election, the email almost screams: WE WANT TO COLLUDE WITH YOU.

But did it really? Newly released testimony from several participants in the Trump Tower meeting suggests the answer could well be no.

In the email, Goldstone told Trump Jr. that a powerful Russian had "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," Goldstone continued, "but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump  to some analysts, those were the key words of collusion, along with Trump Jr.'s response: "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it."

But what, precisely, did the Goldstone email mean? What were the intentions behind it? Did it reveal a Russian campaign to assist Trump? Was it a key part of a collusion scheme to fix the 2016 election?

The just-released testimony, which includes transcripts of two interviews with Goldstone, is from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Trump-Russia investigation. It suggests that the language of the email  the words that electrified the political world when they were reported last year  were less an invitation to collusion than what Goldstone called "publicist puff," that is, inflated phrases used to entice the candidate's top aides to accept a meeting.

And then, when Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting, the Russians, far from offering the promised dirt on Clinton, made a conventional, lobby-like pitch  not a surprise, given that the American law and lobbying firm Baker Hostetler was behind much of it  to win Trump support for getting rid of U.S. sanctions against Russia in the Magnitsky Act. There's no evidence that anyone proposed a deal; instead, the Russians got in the door, made their pitch and left when the Trump team wasn't interested.

Goldstone's email pitch made the meeting sound like something much bigger. But reality did not back it up.

Goldstone told the committee that on the morning of the day he sent the email, he received a call from his employer, a man named Emin Agalarov, who "said that a well-connected Russian attorney had met with his father that morning in his father's office and had told him that they had some interesting information that could potentially be damaging regarding funding by Russians to the Democrats and to its candidate, Hillary Clinton." (Emin Agalarov is a Russian singing star who is the son of Aras Agalarov, a billionaire who was Donald Trump's partner in the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.)

Investigators asked Goldstone why he told Trump Jr. that the Russian government supported Trump. Goldstone explained that he had been to Russia several times, including during the 2013 pageant, and "I had seen and heard firsthand people of all levels, whether it was business people, whether it was friends of Emin, friends of his father, talk in very glowing terms about Mr. Trump. I had also seen on television in Russia many, many reports in which government officials, including the president, Mr. Putin, had praised Mr. Trump, who, in turn, I had seen on CNN had praised Mr. Putin."

So, he basically just made up the stuff about Russia's support of Trump.

Goldstone was asked whether at the time he was aware of any Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. He said he was not. He was asked if he knew anything about the supposed documents that were being offered to Trump Jr. He said he did not.

So why did Goldstone choose the words he chose in the email? An answer came in a 2017 email provided to the committee. Shortly after the Trump Tower meeting was first reported in the media, Goldstone and Emin Agalarov exchanged emails on how best to address the story. Goldstone sent Agalarov a draft statement saying that in the email he used "the strongest hyperbolic language" to convince Trump Jr. to take the meeting. Asked by the Senate what he meant by "strongest hyperbolic language," Goldstone said, "That I had puffed it and used some keywords that I thought would attract Don Jr.'s attention."

"I mean, publicist puff is how they get meetings," Goldstone added.

Others in the room, including a translator thought to have an unbiased view of events, did not remember discussing the promised "dirt" on Clinton, nor anything involving Trump-Russia collusion.

The meeting came to nothing. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer crusading against the Magnitsky Act, left disappointed, while the three Trump officials were apparently unhappy that 20 minutes of their time had been wasted. A year later, when news of the meeting broke, it became the most important 20 minutes of the Trump-Russia investigation.

And that is it. In the end, unless some startling new evidence appears, the notorious Trump Tower meeting seems more like a clumsy attempt at lobbying than a conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
Between 1946 and 2016, what percentage of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have split evenly (4-4)?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time in generations there is a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who, to varying degrees, practice originalism and textualism. This means that the Court can systematically begin to restore the Constitution to its original meaning. This constitutional restoration does not mean that the Constitution's original meaning is the best choice…[more]
 
 
—John Yoo and James C. Phillips
— John Yoo and James C. Phillips
 
Liberty Poll   

During a campaign season, particularly one as intense as the current midterm cycle, do you respond to telephone political polling?