Two questions:
- Why do you believe the fifth (or is it sixth?) account of the meeting Don Jr. set up, when the first four or five turned out to be inaccurate?
- Are you assuming that what we currently know is the most incriminating information that will ever come out?
I ask, because when I wrote about this, I argued that seeing months of insistent denials — that there was any contact whatsoever between the Trump campaign and the Russian government — get disproven so completely meant I no longer could give them the benefit of the doubt.
That means my answer to (1) is I don’t believe them, and (2) is I think the chances of additional, more incriminating information surfacing is higher than the chances none will.
If your point is simply that the emails we’ve seen and the Trump team’s current story about the meeting and its interactions with the Russian government are not in and of themselves a serious legal — or even ethical — violation, fine.
But, in that case, how about laying out what, hypothetically, would constitute an ethical violation for you?
