I think Boris Epshteyn would’ve informed Putin that Engel’s specials run at Maddow’s spot and are a part of her podcast versions. She didn’t choose RT or Fox for this.
-
Interview states that based on the email she edited the response provided by the Russian government to a US questionnaire (authorized by a US court) re: her client. The point is she/RU gov't were to be independent of each other and they weren't.
A US MLAT request. Like I said. But that is not related to the June 9 meeting, except insofar as her visa when she was in the US was to represent that very same client.
-
-
What the interview DOESN'T do, in spite of MSNBC's misleading editing, is prove that when NV was visiting Trump Tower (and on all her Magnitsky lobbying) she was in the pay of RU. It may well be the case! But if so that's LESS damning than what is probably the reality.
-
If she was doing Magnitsky lobbying (in Russian favour) then it could have only be done on behalf of Russian Govt, obviously she got paid for it. It's more likely for pigs to fly then otherwise.
-
As I said, that would be (far) less damaging than what is more likely the case, but not at all addressed in the interview.
-
And what's that most likely case in your view?
-
I think Agalarov conveyed the request from higher up that she take her lobbying show on the road to set up the quid pro quo. If it was JUST her regular lobbying it wouldn't be very useful for the QPQ.
-
Quid pro quo sounds like Russian collusion to me
-
I've not been contesting that QPQ occurred (tho the term "collusion" is one Trump prefers, rather than the legally proper "conspiracy"). I've been contesting that the interview says what people are claiming it does.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.