By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief
(National Sentinel) Media conspiracies: As a lawyer, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer makes a pretty good psychiatrist. Oh, wait…that’s because he isn’t a lawyer.
That helps explain why, in his Friday column, he claimed that Donald Trump Jr.’s fruitless meeting last year with a Russian lawyer claiming to have Moscow-supplied dirt on his father’s presidential opponent amounts to a real example of “collusion” — of the kind Democrats have been claiming existed ever since their candidate was soundly defeated by Don Jr.’s father.
As noted by Breitbart News‘ editor-at-large, Joel Pollack, it could be Krauthammer’s biased against Donald J. Trump, his membership in the Washington political-media swamp the president seeks to drain, or maybe just a lapse in legal judgement that led him to such an incorrect conclusion:
Perhaps the good doctor is still sore after a campaign in which Trump repeatedly criticized him on the stump. Perhaps he is upset Trump won, after he declared that he could never vote for him.
Regardless, it is fortunate that Krauthammer is a psychiatrist and not a lawyer.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “collusion” as follows: “an agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law.”
Donald Trump, Jr.’s emails do not qualify, nor does the meeting with a Russian attorney that purportedly went nowhere and produced nothing.
Lest Krauthammer object that the issue is politics, not law, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “collusion” as “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.”
Again, nothing in the emails or the meeting qualifies, based on what we know.
But none of that matters. Like the Left-wing activist federal judges who base they rulings against Trump’s travel bans on campaign rhetoric and what they perceive are his intentions — rather than what the law, Constitution and Trump’s travel ban executive orders actually say — Krauthammer is claiming he has some special mind-reading ability regarding Don Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnikskaya:
The evidence is now shown. This is not hearsay, not fake news, not unsourced leaks. This is an email chain released by Donald Trump Jr. himself. A British go-between writes that theres a Russian government effort to help Trump Sr. win the election, and as part of that effort he proposes a meeting with a Russian government attorney possessing damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
Moreover, the Kremlin is willing to share troves of incriminating documents from the Crown Prosecutor. (Error: Britain has a Crown Prosecutor. Russia has a State Prosecutor.)
Donald Jr. emails back. I love it. Fatal words.
Once you’ve said I’m in, it makes no difference that the meeting was a bust, that the intermediary brought no such goods.
What matters is what Donald Jr. thought going into the meeting, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who were copied on the correspondence, invited to the meeting, and attended.
Really? It’s just that simple, eh, Charles? Kind of changing what Don Jr. actually emailed back, aren’t you? Because he didn’t simply write, “I love it;” he wrote, “If it’s what you say I love it.” And isn’t that different? Does that not convey a different intent?
Don Jr. has explained, repeatedly now, that when he agreed to take the meeting a) his father was locked in a tight, developing campaign against a formidable opponent; b) his judgment to take the meeting under the circumstance of receiving Russian government-supplied information was based in large part on previous reporting regarding Clinton’s alleged dirty financial ties to Russia and other foreign donors; and c) the “Russia” narrative was not dominating conversation and coverage among Washington’s elite media-political culture.
Question, Charles: Why wouldn’t Don Jr. take such a meeting, if he could access information that would damage his father’s rival? Wouldn’t you do the same thing?
Oh, that’s right; you probably wouldn’t — because you would never have ginned up the courage to run for the nation’s highest office in the first place. No; you’re much too comfortable sitting back and taking unqualified, illogical and wholly inappropriate pot shots at the man who did step up.
And by the way, criticizing the president and those associated with his campaign is perfectly fine. The media does that. Washington’s pundit class does that. I get it.
But as part of the media, Charles, you have to be accurate in your assessments, and let’s face it: This time, you’re clearly not.
The facts are plain, no matter how many times Democrats (and Charles Krauthammer) scream otherwise: There is NO “collusion” evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. There is NO evidence Russia “hacked the election.” And there is NO evidence Moscow tried to interfere in the U.S. election in any manner different from what Russia has attempted to do for decades.
This entire shape-shifting, ever-changing “Russia” narrative is an elaborate hoax, period. And frankly, I just assumed that Charles Krauthammer knew that already.