Sigh!
Referring to the extraordinary news that Donald Trump Jr had taken a meeting with a Russian government lawyer offering damaging information on his father's presidential rival – and then repeatedly lied about it
You see, dear author. You cannot accuse others of cynicism when you yourself are providing "facts" that just aren't, embiggened with fast-breathing partisanship.
> "extraordinary news"
A prior judgement. Is this news "extraordinary"? Really. I doubt it. But adding adjectives is a nice way of penetrating the filters of the target audience.
> a meeting with a Russian government lawyer
Shock! Ties to Russia! Well, let's cite RT (and why not, it's better than Vox and shit along that line)
Natalia Veselnitskaya was almost certainly not representing the Kremlin when she courted baby Trump. Rather she was lobbying on behalf of a client, mixed up in the Sergei Magnitsky case [a very politicised case that seems to be smokescreened by everybody involved]. To that end, the ex-UK tabloid hack Robert Goldstone exaggerated her usefulness to attract Donald Jr.’s attention. By Trump's own account, he quickly sussed this distorted pretext and pulled back. Plus, it’s worth mentioning how she’s also engaged plenty of Democrats as part of her campaign.
So, did she deliver on La Madame? As far as we are being told, she didn't.
> and then repeatedly lied about it
Should Mr. Trump Jr. have accepted the meeting? Heck no. Did he break "campaign finance laws"? Doubtful. Did he lie? It seems so, as he did not correctly disclose the content or the subject of the meeting. But let's be realistic: It frankly sounds like a set-up. Would you really tell world & dog that a russian lawyer has contacted you about oppo, when fingers are already being pointed at you with the accusation that your ties are less clean than they should be?
Meanwhile, triple-A memoryholed: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.-.
Weird, eh?