Kushner's hard-to-believe rationalization of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting

[DonViejo]

By Philip Bump
June 3 at 9:55 AM

Axios’ Jonathan Swan, sitting down with President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner for “Axios on HBO”, raised one of the questions central to the investigation into allegations of coordination between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

“On June the 8, 2016,” Swan began, “you were sent an email with an offer of help for the Trump campaign from the Russian government.”

"I'm sorry,” Kushner replied, “which email are you talking about?"

There’s not a zero chance that Kushner knew exactly which email Swan was asking about, just as there’s not a zero chance that the sun will suddenly vanish at noon on Wednesday. Maybe Kushner has so effectively externalized questions about the Trump campaign and Russian interference that he has only limited recollection of even the most talked about aspects of that issue, like this particular email chain. Or perhaps Kushner was deploying a tactic with which we’re all familiar: Trying to downplay the importance of something by feigning ignorance about it.

"Ah, the email from uh Rob Goldstone,” Swan replied, identifying the music promoter who'd initially reached out to Donald Trump Jr. with the request for a meeting on behalf of his client, a Russian developer and pop star named Emin Agalarov. The email we know Kushner received wasn't actually from Goldstone but, instead, had been forwarded by Trump Jr.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/03/kushners-hard-to-believe-rationalization-trump-tower-meeting/?utm_term=.fe6336aee6cf

[Hoyt]

1. This is what the esteemed investigator Mueller said about that meeting in his report:

"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in
connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra.

The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent
("knowing" and "willful), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information,
criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will
probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." . . . . .


". . . . . . There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the
meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to
obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible
evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these
individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and,
second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52
U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i). . . . . . ."
___________________


No wonder it took Mueller so long, he had to contort his brain and report to let the trump campaign off the most serious charges in the investigation. Disgusting. It's very difficult reading Mueller's report knowing the effort he took to give trump and his campaign cover with respect to the most serious aspects of the investigation.