Let’s start this with a fill-in game:
-(Name of politician) is running for political office.
-(Name of politician’s senior campaign staffer) is contacted by someone who says he has damaging material about (name of politician’s opponent).
-So (name of politician’s senior campaign staffer) meets with that person to find out what the material is, and whether it will be helpful to (politician’s) campaign.
OK, here’s my question: which politician could not be used in this game? Which politician, in other words, would say “No, I don’t want to know material damaging to my opponent so I don’t want a senior campaign staffer to meet with that person and find out what he’s got.”
Can you name anyone at all? I know I can’t.
With that in mind, I will note that Jared Kushner’s meeting with a Russian official who claimed to have the goods on Hillary Clinton, is front-page news in today’s New York Times and the lead story on this morning’s Today show (and, I would bet the other morning shows as well).
-Is there any evidence whatsoever that some kind of illegal collusion took place as the result of that meeting? No.
-Is there any evidence the Trump campaign got any useful information from the meeting? No
-Is there any evidence that, from the standpoint of gaining anything for his father in law’s campaign, this was anything but a waste of time for Kushner? No.
And that is before we get to the claim – also without evidence – that the Clinton people had something to do with setting the meeting up (possibly using the major contacts Ms. Clinton, and her campaign chairperson John Podesta have had with Russia for years – which media steadfastly refuse to investigate) in an effort to dole out misinformation to Trump and Co.
So why is a story about nothing, the lead story this morning – other than a desperate attempt by some major media venues to take down President Trump?
Any alternative possibilities out there? Let’s have them.
