Donald Jr.’s Russian Honey Pot Meeting Was Completely within the Law
Jul 12, 2017
RUSH: I have a couple pieces here from people who have written about this episode, this latest episode, which, again, I’m sorry if this appears redundant, but I feel a compulsion here to say a couple of things I believe to be key over and over again to drive the point home.
The reaction, coupled with a column today in the Washington Post by Dan Balz, tells me this is it; they’ve got nothing but this. All that’s preceded this — all the bombshells, all the blockbusters, all of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN stories — nothing. They’ve got it all. This is it, folks. This is the story. And Dan Balz’s piece, “A Revelation Unlike Any Other in the Russia Investigation.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the media sees this as their last-gasp chance, because they’re not going to stop. I think this is the one of all in the past nine months that they think might stick. None of the others have. And so they’re giddy. They’re not able to help themselves.
Here is Robert Barnes at a website called LawNewz on: “Why Donald Trump Jr. is Innocent. Period.” A pull quote: “Hence, legally, Donald Trump Jr. taking a meeting at the request of a family friend, to hear someone wanting to volunteer information about your Dad’s adversary, can legally be no crime. He did what a loyal son, honorable friend, and smart advocate would do — hear them out. Anyone who thinks that’s a crime is the one who needs to have their values checked.
“Donald Trump Jr. took a meeting from someone claiming evidence of foreign corruption by Hillary Clinton.” By the way, that’s important to point out. What Donald Trump Jr. was told was not that the Russians wanted to help Trump win. They had high-level indicting kind of news on Hillary.
It wasn’t, “Hey, the Russians want to help your dad win. The Russians want to conspire and collude with you.” It was, “You know, I got a friend who’s the son of a powerful oligarch who says somebody’s got some really damning information on Hillary that you ought to hear about. It comes from the highest levels of the Russian government.”
“Well, okay. We’ll hear what this is.” We don’t know what Donald Trump Jr. would have done with it because it was never given! There wasn’t any high-level information. Can you say “setup”?
“Donald Trump Jr. took a meeting from someone claiming evidence of foreign corruption by Hillary Clinton. The meeting proved useless. Donald Trump Jr. released the emails leading to the meeting. It is clear from the documents and statements of all involved that Donald Trump Jr. did nothing wrong. He broke no law.
“This isn’t like Hillary Clinton’s husband soliciting donations disguised as speech payments, travel costs, and charity work, while Hillary was Secretary of State. Based solely on the fact the source of the information was a Yeltsin-era prosecutor from Russia, a few anti-Trump lawyers falsely accuse Trump Jr. of a crime.
“American law imposed no restrictions on foreign donations for almost all of its history until that ethical icon Lyndon Baines Johnson was President.” Did you know that? Foreigners could donate to presidential campaigns, they could, until LBJ. And why do you think that is? Well, ’cause LBJ was so ethical. (laughing)
“Then, after Watergate, those restrictions on foreign funding of American elections was mostly enacted through incorporation of Watergate-era reforms. Exceptions always existed: only cash donations, or the like, were prohibited and green card holders exempt. … The Code of Federal Regulations makes the law immunizing Trump Jr.’s actions precisely clear: any foreign national individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The law provides this volunteer ‘exemption’ as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone on the campaign.”
Here we are back to the quid pro quo. Nobody has ever found one! In any of this, there has never been a quid pro quo. You can find them all over the place with Hillary Clinton and uranium and Ukraine. You can find quid pro quos with Hillary Clinton, 250 grand for a 20-minute speech to Goldman Sachs and every other banker on earth. Ditto, Bill Clinton.
You can find quid pro quos with Mrs. Clinton and that foundation selling influence to the White House before she even got there. But you don’t have any quid pro quos with Donald Trump, and you don’t have any with Donald Trump Jr. What would have made something like this a crime under current law would have required money in some way, shape, manner, form. There wasn’t any here.
Let’s say that the honey pot turned out to actually be a lawyer like she was reputed to be and let’s say the honey pot did have a message from the highest levels of the Russian government. And let’s say the honey pot showed up at the meeting and told Donald Trump Jr. what that information was. And let’s say that that information was very damaging to Hillary Clinton. Do you think a journalist would invoke the public’s right to know, to be entitled to what it is? You don’t?
Okay. Let’s turn it around. Let’s see. Chelsea Clinton, after a few hours of courageous tweeting, gets a phone call from a music producer in the U.K., gets an email, claiming that somebody has damaging information on Donald Trump from the highest levels of the Russian government. And they want to send a lawyer from Russia, from Moscow to meet with Chelsea to impart the information. And let’s say Chelsea takes the meeting, and let’s say the lawyer does have some damaging news about Donald Trump.
Let’s say that they’ve got video of prostitutes urinating on Obama’s bed in Moscow. Do you think journalists would invoke the public’s right to know about that? Damn straight they would. They wouldn’t be talking about Chelsea Clinton committing treason, would they? No, no, no. Chelsea Clinton, make her vice president, this woman is showing how classy and how qualified she is. She was able to dig up dirt on Trump, they would say. And they would be praising her to smithereens.
“The saying in the Watergate days was that ‘it’s not the crime but the cover-up.’ These days, you don’t need a crime or a cover-up to trigger outsized political outrage, just a heavy dose of bad optics.” Which is what this is.
James Robbins at USA Today says: “This story is hardly as inane as the collective furor that has been generated around the Russia issue writ large. Although four intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government attempted to influence the 2016 election, there is no evidence that any of these attempts succeeded.”
And that’s my point. You know, everybody’s running around and saying, as though it is common knowledge and inarguable that everybody knows the Russians attempted to affect the election. The Russians interfered. The Russians did. And then when you ask ’em, what did they do? You know what the answer you get is? No, no. They have an answer for you. The answer, “The Russians got Podesta’s emails and gave ’em to WikiLeaks.” That’s it.
Now, Julian Assange at WikiLeaks has denied from the get-go that it was the Russians that gave him Podesta’s emails. But that’s it. That’s it. We know that somebody hacked the DNC computers, and they won’t let any forensics analysis of those computers take place. We know that the Democrats rigged the election against Crazy Bernie. (interruption) What do you mean, what could have happened? Oh, you mean Seth Rich? I didn’t say that. Don’t lump me in that crowd. I know they went nuts when people started to go — we don’t even have to go there. Everybody thinks the Russians succeeded! Everybody thinks the Russians succeeded!
This is what gets me. It galls me. And I still don’t really know how they did it. What I know is they didn’t affect votes in any way, shape, manner or form. I don’t care if they tried, they try all the time, everyone does, but they did not succeed at that. The election was not illegitimate. The election was not fraudulent. The outcome was not the result of cheating or fraud. Well, the Democrats might have voter fraud, but not the Russians.
There’s never been anything to this story, as far as I’m concerned. That’s why these bombshells don’t affect me. We have a Trump loyalist on the staff here who was really worried on Monday over this Donald Trump Jr. story. “This worries me,” the loyalist said.
Why? How is this any different? There’s still nothing here. What’s being alleged didn’t happen. “Yeah, but he looked like he was prepared to take the meeting” But it didn’t happen. Yeah, he took the meeting under pretext, but it’s so much ado about nothing. The fact that they’re trying to make this into something so big is quite telling.
Now the honey pot, the honey pot. We got a lot of interesting news about the honey pot out there today. Her name is Natalia Veselnitskaya. It takes a seasoned and highly trained broadcast specialist to pronounce that name with no stuttering and pauses and rehearsals. Natalia Veselnitskaya. And she is pictured — I’ve seen it at two different websites now — pictured with Obama officials in Washington June 14th, 2016.
Does that date — when did she meet with Trump Jr.? June the 9th. Five days later, she’s in the front row at a congressional hearing. She was a guest of former Obama administration Russian ambassador Michael McFaul for a House of Representatives hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia.
She is pictured seated in the front row directly behind the ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. It was the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It’s June 14th. It’s five days after the reported meeting that she had with Donald Trump Jr.
Ambassador McFaul was publicly discussing the Russia conspiracy narrative in the media. He appeared on a bunch of MSNBC broadcasts during the 2016 campaign. Immediately after the election, Ms. Natalia Veselnitskaya was initially denied an entry visa into the U.S. in 2016. She appealed her situation to the U.S. District Court of New York. She was granted a parole letter allowing her to enter the U.S. on behalf of a client.
So what is the nature, if any — I mean, did she just happen to show up in a congressional hearing where the former Obama ambassador to Russia was under questioning, five days after meeting with Donald Trump Jr.? What’s going on here? What connection is there between Natalia Veselnitskaya and President Obama’s ambassador to Russia? Why would there be any relationship?
She has to get special permission to enter the country for this meeting? Somebody at the U.S. Southern District of New York, the federal court, made this happen. Who was the U.S. attorney then? Why, that would be Preet Bharara. See how we can play the conspiracy game here. That means Chuck Schumer might have been involved. (laughing)
RUSH: This is Frank in Fresno. Thank you for calling, Frank. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Boy, I better go buy a lottery ticket today ’cause this is my lucky day talking to you, Rush. Twenty year dittos. Let me get right to the point. It’s funny you said Chuck Schumer. I recently saw a photo of Chuck Schumer standing next to Vladimir Putin while Chuck Schumer was holding a drink. This is on a website called Judicial Watch. I find it rather interesting and especially now that you just mention maybe Chuck Schumer might have had something to do with this Russian lawyer.
RUSH: I was trying to illustrate the way conspiracies are put together on the left. But look, it’s an interesting question. This honey pot, Natalia Veselnitskaya, she’s not legally permitted in the country. She has to seek an exception. She gets it from the Feds at the U.S. attorney’s office Southern District of New York. At the time, the U.S. attorney in that district was Preet Bharara, who was a Chuck Schumer aficionado and loyalist.
But this is the woman — we have the British music publicist — have you seen a picture of this guy, by the way, this Rob Goldstone guy? This guy posts selfies of himself all over. He wears Russian general caps with his plaid work shirt. He looks like an absolute goon, one of these crazy people, and he’s obviously seeking fame. The kid involved here is the Michael Buble of Russia. That is the son of the Russian oligarch that this publicist knows. Emin is his name, and Emin was the guy who called Goldstone and says, “Hey, we got somebody that has some really damning information on Hillary. We need to get it to Donald Trump Jr. We got this babe coming over there, and we’d like for Trump Jr. to take a meeting with the babe.”
The babe is the honey pot, this Natalia Veselnitskaya. Well, she can’t legally get into the country at the time. What was she doing in the country anyway? Why was she coming here anyway? She was supposedly banned from the U.S. at the time. So she got a visa or visa extension of some kind from the Obama administration. It seems that she’s connected to Fusion GPS.
There’s a lot to keep track of here. Fusion GPS is intimately involved in the creation of the Trump golden showers dossier, and the honey pot has involvement with those people. That is an interesting side light story to this as well, the Russian dossier and the collusion between Americans and Russians in order for that to happen. And that did not involve collusion with Trump; he was the target of that collusion.
RUSH: Now, about this connection to Fusion GPS, this is from Circa. It’s a couple days ago. This is a great, great, great news service, John Solomon and Sara Carter. Quote, “The president’s legal team said Saturday they believe the entire meeting may have been part of a larger election-year opposition effort aimed at creating the appearance of improper connections between Trump family members and Russia that also included a now-discredited intelligence dossier produced by a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele –”
I’m going to go through this again, too, because we have been making ourselves hoarse trying to tell people about this phony, fake Trump dossier, which has been admitted to by Comey and others and John Brennan CIA as the foundation for all of these phony investigations and libelous, slanderous news stories. A fake, phony dossier.
And the president’s legal team said Saturday they believed the entire meeting, the attempted setup of the meeting with the honey pot, “Natasha,” and Trump Jr. “may have been part of a larger election-year opposition effort aimed at creating the appearance of improper connections between Trump family members and Russia.
“The connection drawn by the president’s lawyers between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS comes from a letter this spring by the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley, who disclosed that Fusion GPS also provided litigation support in the Prevezon case. Prevezon also apparently lobbied against the Magnitsky Act, according to Grassley’s letter.”
It’s all interconnected. It’s made to look like we have an isolated incident, some guy in the U.K. knows a song stylist in Russia who’s the son of a big oligarch who knows Putin! And he calls the publicist in the U.K., Goldstone, says (paraphrasing), “Hey, we got some high-level information on Hillary Clinton, how corrupt she is, and we’ve got a lawyer coming over. We’d love for you to meet her and have her impart the news.”
And, in fact, this woman is much more entwined and involved in the Obama administration. She’s not just some random person chosen to carry a message. And the odds are we can even say the nature of the evidence and compare it to the seriousness of the charge. There hasn’t been anything up to now that has been worth anything legally in incriminating Donald Trump or anybody in his campaign. There’s nothing. Everything’s wrapped up into this.
And it’s just the latest in a long line of things being made to look like it’s out of the blue and totally independent and related to nothing that’s come before it, and I don’t believe that. I don’t believe it’s a standalone meeting, standalone issue, standalone event that has no ties to anything that has happened prior. I think it’s all part of this ongoing effort to get Trump thrown out of office. I think it’s all part of the silent coup.
And that’s the primary reason I’m not among the crowd biting my fingernails, “Oh, no, oh, no, this looks like it will be the one. Oh, no.” I haven’t even once considered that there’s anything to this, other than trickery. But that’s just me, folks, because I don’t trust ’em. I think they lie through their teeth. I know the left. I know the media. I know how they operate. I know what their objective here is. I know what their agenda here is. And when I see the agenda in action, why am I all of a sudden gonna change my mind about what it is after a-nine-month steady diet of it?
Anyway, Mark in Joplin, Missouri, as we head back to phones. I’m glad you waited. How you doing, sir?
CALLER: I’m doing well, sir. Mega dittos, Rush, 25-year listener.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: My point is, I’ve heard some people criticize Trump Jr. that instead of taking the meeting, that he should have turned it over I assume to the Justice Department. Well, who the hell is he gonna give it to, Loretta Lynch? James Comey? Who’s he gonna give it to? Who’s he gonna give the information to?
RUSH: He’s asking an interesting question here. By the way, this is not something that Donald Trump Jr. would ever say in public. His point here — it’s a good point out there, Mark. His point is that Trump Jr. critics, the holier-than-thou, never done anything wrong people in the media — that’s another thing that bothers me, they sit there in moral judgment of everybody else as though they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. They’ve never done anything untoward, and they sit here and they pounce and pronounce judgment on everybody else’s behavior.
But what ol’ Mark here is saying, okay, you’re Donald Trump Jr., you take the meeting, the meeting is supposedly about high-level information, bad news on Hillary, and now the media’s saying, “He should have immediately called the FBI.” And left-wing lawyers, “He should have called the FBI. This is treason. He’s got a foreign government calling offering to do harm to our Democrat presidential candidate. He should call the FBI.”
And Mark’s point is, call the FBI, call James Comey, call Loretta Lynch, call the Obama Justice Department with this? If you’re in the Trump campaign, aren’t you gonna be a little bit suspicious of the Obama Justice Department? Now, that’s not something Donald Trump Jr. would ever admit to on TV. Let’s say he’s under intense interrogation by Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel last night. “Why didn’t you call the FBI? Why don’t you do the right thing, Trump Jr.?”
“Are you kidding me, Sean? Are you kidding me? You think we’re gonna call Loretta Lynch or James Comey with this?” He would never say that, if that’s what his thinking was. It would never happen. Let’s listen. We have Trump Jr. on Hannity last night. This is audio sound bite number 3. And Hannity’s question, “Okay, this email comes in. What are you thinking when you get that email?”
TRUMP JR.: Honestly, my take-away when all of this is going on is that someone has information on our opponent. You know, things are going a million miles an hour. You know what it’s like to be on the campaign. We just won Indiana, but we’re talking about a contested convention. Things are going a million miles an hour, again. And, hey, wait a minute. I’ve heard about all these things, but maybe this is something. I should hear ’em out.
HANNITY: When you read the parts about the Russian government or Russia supporting your father, did that report off any sirens in your head?”
TRUMP JR.: Honestly, I don’t know. I mean, I think this is, again, just basic information that was gonna be possible there. I didn’t know these guys well enough to understand that if this talent manager for Miss Universe, you know, had this kind of thing. So I wanted to hear him out and play it out and see what happens. But, you know, people are trying to reach out to you all the time with this.
RUSH: People are trying to reach out all the time. I don’t know this guy, basic information was gonna be possible there. I didn’t know these guys well enough to understand this stuff. And it didn’t happen. So Hannity’s next question is, “What do you know about this Russian lawyer?” He means the honey pot, Natasha Badenov. This woman she been modeled after Boris and Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle, that’s what you have to think of if you remember the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons, Boris and Natasha, the Russian spies. Boris Badenov.
You know what my favorite Bond girl name is? (interruption) No, it’s not the way you said it. It’s from Goldfinger, Pussy Galore. You can’t say it the way you said it. No. Do you remember the actress who played Pussy Galore? Honor Blackman. Now, this was not Sean Connery, was not Roger Moore. So I think this was Timothy Dalton or Pierce, but Famke Janssen was the actress. She played a Bond villain Bond girl. Her name was Irene [sic] Onatopp.
TRUMP JR.: I actually didn’t know anything about it. Again, an acquaintance sent me this email. As a courtesy to him, I said, “Okay. Let’s meet.” But I didn’t know who I was meeting beforehand, never heard of the person, never got the information until they were in the room.
HANNITY: At any point in your mind did Don Jr. have a siren say, “Okay, they’re talking about Russia, Russian government, meeting with this person, you were gonna talk on the phone, did you ever think maybe this might not be –”
TRUMP JR.: Listen, I think, like I said, in retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently. Again, this is before the Russia mania. This is before they were building it up in the press. For me this was opposition research they had something, maybe concrete evidence to all the stories I’d been hearing about but were probably underreported for, you know, years, not just during the campaign, so I think I wanted to hear it out.
RUSH: Donald Trump Jr. last night on Hannity. We have to take a brief time-out. It wasn’t Irene but the last name was Onatopp. What? Zelia. Spell it. ‘Cause it sounds like exactly what I’m saying. Xenia, okay, you’re right. I thought you were saying Zelia. Xenia Onatopp. Yea, she was. You just now finding Famke Janssen? She’s been a lot of things. Xenia Onatopp. Dawn’s in there saying, “I don’t get it, what what what’s so funny about it?”
RUSH: Cutting edge, societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair. Ladies and gentlemen, this Natasha Veselnitskaya — and I know it’s Natalia, I’m calling her Natasha because of my affinity for the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. We’re learning more about this woman, and as we do, we are discovering how closely tied to the Democrat Party she is. And one of the discoveries results from the pictures that she herself has posted on her Facebook page.
In December of 2015, six months before she was part of the requested meeting with Donald Trump Jr., she posted a photo on Facebook from inside Senator McCain’s office. It is Senator McCain, and I don’t know who he’s standing next to. The guy looks Russian, but what do I know? It’s probably discriminatory to say somebody looks Russian. But they do. I mean, you can spot ’em, men and women, you can spot from that part of the world.
In in December 2015 she posted a photo on Facebook from inside Senator McCain’s office. Then, according to other photos on the Facebook page of Natalia Veselnitskaya, this woman who claims she has no ties to the Kremlin, attended the women’s march in Chicago the day after Trump’s inauguration. This woman attended the massive anti-Trump protest, this one in Chicago, this is the women’s march, you know, where they’re all wearing those vagina hats. There are three pictures posted of the women’s rally in Chicago. And one of the pictures of a protest sign, “My vagina, my choice.”
She’s got a picture posted, she went to the anti-Trump rally, the women’s march in Chicago the day after Trump’s inauguration, the honey pot is there. She’s taking pictures there. This is the thing that’s George Soros’s, all these protests bought and paid for, she’s there, she’s posted three pictures on her Facebook page, and one of them is of a giant protest sign that says, “My vagina, my choice.”
Has Trump ever said anything about abortion? This is clearly just an organized stage bought-and-paid-for protest on generic principles, and they’re her pictures. She’s posted them. Now, I’m assuming that she took them. It’ll probably be stated, “No, she didn’t take them. It’s just she saw them and she liked them and she posted, but she wasn’t there.” But this woman, she’s front row at a House hearing where the Obama ambassador to Russia is testifying. She is his guest in the front row. She is got a picture taken from inside McCain’s office in December of 2015.
This woman is not some randomly chosen messenger. She is obviously actively involved in politics. She says she’s got no ties to the Kremlin. I mean, if she doesn’t, she has access because of some other reason.
Let’s see. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Ah, the guy I was gonna take hung up. We had a guy on hold who said if you look at the emails, he said he’s read the thread, and if you go — and I have too, I have read the entire email thread. And you know what strikes me about this email thread? That somebody’s lying. Somebody’s lying throughout this email thread.
I finally had a chance, it was presented to me yesterday in the middle of program, it was too long. I could not have read it, analyzed it and comprehended it. So I had to put it aside and do it last night. I read the entire thread. And I’m telling you, folks, somebody is lying big time in this, and it isn’t Donald Trump Jr. because he’s just the recipient of things. He’s just being asked questions. The meeting is originally set for one day at three. And then they say they can’t make it that day, not all not gonna be here, can you do it tomorrow at four? Yeah, tomorrow four is fine.
This email thread from Goldstone. He’s the music PR guy in the U.K. and some of the others from Russia, every talking point in this entire Trump-Russia collusion scandal is in this email thread. Practically every talking point. And it also appears that this Goldstone guy does not have all of the access and connections that he’s portraying himself to have. It really looked like a ball of confusion, this entire email thread leading up to the meeting.
But the overall conclusion I had is that there’s a lot of people lying in this thing. Well, a lot of lies and misleading misrepresentations, and it’s not Donald Trump Jr. doing it, though. And the fact the media has glommed on to all of this again tells me this is it, this is the best they’ve got. None of what has preceded this has panned out at all. So now all their eggs are in this sorry basket.
RUSH: I just saw another picture on “Natasha’s” Facebook page, and it’s the day of Trump’s inauguration. The picture is of a military-uniform-wearing Vladimir Putin holding a baby, and the baby’s head is Donald Trump. Chew on that here at the top of the hour. I’m gonna go get a cookie.
RUSH: Now, I mentioned earlier that there is an actual bit of collusion in this campaign that does not involve Trump. The collusion is between Democrats and agents for Russia. And I’ve talked about this so much, I imagine many of you are tired of hearing about this too. It’s the golden showers dossier, otherwise known as the Trump dossier. And it is the only real Russian collusion we know of so far that actually happened, and it was done by anti-Trumpers and Hillary Clinton supporters.
This is the famous dossier which contains various allegations against Trump, including that he hired prostitutes to come urinate on a bed in a hotel that Barack and Michelle Obama had used in Moscow. To review: This thing was put together by intelligence — well, it was put together by a specific U.K. intelligence agent. But the purpose of it was to show it to Trump because intelligence people were trying to get him to agree to meet with them every day. He was saying, “No, I don’t need to, I’ve got a good memory.”
So they put this thing together to show it to him, to give him an idea of the kind of things that could appear every day out there that he needed to know about. And they made up a bunch of stuff, they made up a bunch of phony things, put it in this dossier to try to convince Trump he needed to meet with intel agents. What I now conclude is that that was secondary. The real purpose of this was to get this thing in the public domain. It had been flitting around Washington, the media all knew about it, but nobody would report it because none of it was true. Not a single allegation that could be corroborated.
But Comey, in January, finally prevailed on Trump, and Trump took a meeting where Comey showed him the dossier. That makes it news. Once Comey shows the dossier to Trump, then the media has a story. Doesn’t matter what’s in the dossier, simply that the president-elect was shown it makes it news. The next day BuzzFeed published the entire thing with all of their caveats. But that’s what they wanted. And they needed a news hook. And the news hook was Comey showed it to Trump.
So the media is scouring the earth, looking for evidence of Trump and Russia collusion. The public record shows that Democrats have used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Trump and to attack his administration. And now it’s even being written about by Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times.
The disinformation is in this dossier, a Russian-fed dossier. It was written by Christopher Steele, a name you probably have grown weary of hearing here. Christopher Steele, former MI6 British intelligence agent. The Trump dossier contains a series of unverified criminal charges against Trump’s campaign aides. Among them, coordinating Moscow’s hacking of Democrat Party computers. That’s in the dossier.
Some Democrats have widely circulated that this discredited information, Steele, Christopher Steele, the Brit who wrote this, was paid by a Democrat-funded opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to which “Natasha” has ties. The Russian honey pot of Donald Trump Jr. fame has ties to Fusion GPS. Steele was paid by Democrat-funded opposition research with money from a Hillary Clinton supporter. Hillary Clinton supporter paid for the Trump dossier. Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists.
It fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it to investigate Trump’s campaign aides. This dossier, which cannot be corroborated. I’m sorry if you’ve heard this. You have to understand new people tuning in every day, and it goes right to this Veselnitskaya babe because she has ties to Fusion GPS. This dossier did not contain one thing true. It was purposefully made up.
This dossier has been stated as the reason, by John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, Brennan said this dossier formed the basis of his investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians on the election. Comey has said the Trump dossier formed a basis of his investigation. In other words, the foundation of all of this literal BS is a phony, fake dossier written by a former Brit MI6 agent paid for by Democrat money with a Democrat support group called Fusion GPS.
Now, Steele, Christopher Steele says he gave the FBI the information. The Washington Post reports that Comey was so happy with the information that he asked Steele to continue his research, and even offered to pay him 50 grand. Folks, this is astounding! It’s made up! It’s all fake! There isn’t a single true allegation in it. It’s not even close.
Comey liked it, basis of investigation, John Brennan, CIA. Comey, according to the Washington Post, was so pleased with the information, he asked Steele to continue investigating. None of this came from an investigation. It came from his mind. He made it up! “Steele makes clear that his unproven charges came almost exclusively from sources linked to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
This just gets better. The guy who wrote the dossier, Christopher Steele, makes clear that all of these allegations against Trump can be linked to the Kremlin and Putin. Christopher Steele “identified his sources as ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure,’ a former ‘top level Russian intelligence officer active inside the Kremlin,’ a ‘senior Kremlin official’ and a ‘senior Russian government official.'”
Those are the sources cited by Steele he says provided him the information. And yet, “The same Democrats who have condemned Russia’s election interference via plying fake news and hacking email servers have quoted freely from the Steele anti-Trump memos derived from creatures of the Kremlin.”
The real collusion here — and the story goes on — there are more details, but I’ve got a break coming up. Steele admits that he’s got four different sources inside the Kremlin that fed him these lies, and these lies impressed Comey and Brennan and formed the basis of an investigation. There’s collusion between the Russian government and MI6 and the Hillary Clinton campaign. That’s what makes all of this so outrageous, including this latest nonsense about Donald Trump Jr.
RUSH: Audio sound bites. Alan Dershowitz. We have three bites from him. We’ll at least try the first one here. He was on with Neil Cavuto’s Fox News Coast to Coast this afternoon. Cavuto: “If Donald Trump Jr. wasn’t part of a hack and if he just received the information, that’s a big difference. How is that a big difference, Alan?”
DERSHOWITZ: Well, it’s much like the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers. If the New York Times had been involved in stealing the Pentagon Papers the way Daniel Ellsberg was, they would have been shut down or the editors put in jail — or the people that published WikiLeaks or, you know, Snowden. There’s a big difference between the act of stealing or the act of hacking and the act of using it. And there’s really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained illegally — obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally — and a newspaper doing it. So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. It’s also not prohibited by law. And there’s been so much overwrought claim. There are people who are talking about treason!
RUSH: You know, I have been marveling throughout this entire nine months that Alan Dershowitz, a noted leftist, is — nine times out of 10 — on Donald Trump’s side of all of these allegations. You know what his point here is? He said (summarized), “This is no different than the Pentagon Papers. If some foreign government had given Donald Trump Jr. some dirt? (snorts) That’s no different than Daniel Ellsberg giving it to the New York Times, and the New York Times published it and nobody went after them criminally. They went after Ellsberg for stealing it! But Donald Trump Jr. wouldn’t have been the criminal here.”
The point is… He didn’t get to it, but the point is that there was no such information passed along. That was simply a ruse to get the meeting, much like Comey asking for a meeting with Trump to show him the dossier made the dossier news. Getting Trump Jr. to take the meeting under the premise that damning information on Hillary would be presented is what got Trump Jr. to take the meeting. If this Goldstone guy had written Trump and said, “Look, there’s a woman here — a Kremlin lawyer — very upset about the Magnitsky Act and really wants to talk to you about it,” what do you think Trump Jr. would have said?
“The Magnitsky Act? I don’t even know what that is. But I don’t have time for it now,” and he would have blown it off. But since this Goldstone guy says, “Hey, we got somebody who is a high-level source in the Kremlin government with news on Hillary Clinton’s corruption!” “Well, I might want to hear that.” But Dershowitz’s points is that there’s no criminality or treason here on the part of the Donald Trump Jr. to take a meeting to listen to what it is, any more than the New York Times is guilty of treason for publishing the Pentagon Papers. This is gonna tick ’em off because they’re gonna… It’s Tim Kaine — Senator Tim Kaine — trying to make the treason charge stick, and of course other leftists have picked up on that under the premise that Trump Jr. was willing to collude with the Russian government.