Discussion: Schiff: Trump Jr.'s Russia Meeting 'Clear Evidence' Of Intent To Collude


Excellent. I want him on people’s TVs at every opportunity there is to get him on.


I like this guy.


Schiff was killer today on ABC. He also made a clever argument that Trump’s actions support the view that he did in fact did learn about the meeting contemporaneously (i.e., June '16). Trump announced he was going to do a big speech on HRC dirt and then canceled it. It would suggest that something changed his mind, which might’ve been the account of that meeting and the set of action items/next steps.


There was a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been horrified by collusion with an enemy agent.

Now…so many people are willing to go on national tv without a circle covering their face and their voice distorted, like a mob informant, to support Trump’s version of events that it’s almost astonishing. But of course it isn’t.


I’ll second that.

He went right to the quid quo pro arrangement that this meeting strongly suggests happened, but not many have overtly discussed. It being you give us dirt on Hillary and we’ll look favorably on repealing sanctions.

And what do you know…?

Schiff has Maddow’s ability of simplifying complex issues in a very smart way.


The president knew. And when the heat starts reaching the boiling point, someone with newly granted immunity is going to talk.



come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

Nope. Not intent to collude. They colluded.


Adam Schiff: Simple, plain, clear, direct, devastating. Love it.


And according to one of the people in the room, a folder of the dirt was handed over.

But Trunp’s excuse was it wasn’t good enough dirt. And that’s accepting his version of events at face value.


And if it wasn’t good enough, what did the Trump team do? Say “well, we won’t work with the Russians”? Or say “what else can you get us and do that’s better?”


Does this worry anybody else ?


Based on Sukulow’s appearance on Press the Meat this morning, Donnie Derp Jr. better watch out for oncoming buses. One has his name on it…


If there’s a blanket pre-emptive pardon, then I think those who are pardoned can still be compelled to testify and they can still be charged with perjury if they lie. Am I correct about this, all you criminal attorneys out there (sorry, I meant attorneys who handle criminal cases)?


It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a Federal election.

In my view the email exchange and subsequent meeting are a clear solicitation and if the folder exists then Jr. has hit the trifecta.


But the drugs I thought I was buying weren’t good your honor.


“…but under Heck’s hypothetical, Caputo’s assertion can be seen in a different light: A blanket pardon would protect Caputo, and whomever else Trump named, from repercussions arising from any unlawful acts relating to Trump and Russia — including possibly committing perjury.”

1 Like

Schiff needs to be put on the same show with Sekolow for a frank discussion.


He’s worried about non-public pardons. How do you pardon someone in secret? Everyone involved in the investigation would have to know about a pardon just for it to have an effect.

1 Like

As in military matters, letting the other guy choose the battleground is a strategic error. In this case they want to fight on the ground of narrow legality, which is a way of sucking all the oxygen out of the room for discussing what is truly damning. I would suggest that when they talk legalism, the conversation should be steered back to the two gut-level dimensions of this. One is to attack Trump’s patriotism:

1: “I don’t care whether it’s technically legal or not. When you’re an American running for the presidency, you don’t do that by colluding with a hostile foreign power out of one side of your mouth while telling the American people you’re trying to make America great again out of the other. That may be legal too, but it’s a corrupt, cynical way of lying to people who are putting their trust in you.” Or however you want put that.

The other is slightly more cerebral but still easily graspable on an instinctive level and is also being grossly underplayed by the “legal” distraction technique: this isn’t just about oppo research, it’s about blackmail:

2: Borrowing from Yglesias: “Trump and his people told the American people over many months that there were no meetings yet now know those were lies. You know who knew they were lies all along? The Russians they were ready to collude with. That knowledge spells leverage–that’s how these operations work. There needn’t have been any information transmitted for the whole situation to spell leverage for the Russians. That was what Sally Yates was saying about Flynn’s lies–before she got fired. If you lie to the public about meetings with the Russian government, the Russian government will know that you lied and could threaten to release embarrassing and personally damaging information unless you take positions they like. Each one of those knowing lies added to the leverage on the other side. Worse, we have only begun to see how compromised they were and we still do not know the whole extent of how compromised they still are. Again, this is a campaign and a president that loudly claims the mantle of patriotism, yet we now know that simply by accepting a meeting under those terms they were willingly–or obliviously–putting themselves in a position where the Russian government can threaten them if they don’t take positions Russia likes.”