NOW TRENDING:

Keith Olbermann Says WE NOW HAVE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT—and Here Is the Smoking Gun [VIDEO]

In the latest episode of “The Resistance,” Keith Olbermann made a strong case for the immediate arrests of Donald Trump, Jr. and his co-conspirators in the June 9, 2016, meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian attorney, and her cohorts. Olbermann said:

Trump has now jumped on this bandwagon, beginning to rationalize that conspiring with an enemy nation is “just politics,” while one of his own lawyers had inadvertantly opened the door to the prospect that Trump may have been indirectly involved with that meeting—or even have attended it.

Loading...

The emails sent to Trump Jr. make it clear that the compromising information on Hillary Clinton he hoped to receive was, as Olbermann notes, “official government information” and would be, as far as the president’s eldest son knew, a meeting with “an emissary of the Russian government.”

Then came the smoking gun—or at least one of them: citing Federal Election Commission filings, Olbermann said Trump’s campaign paid $50,000 to one of his son’s attorneys two weeks before the Veselnitskaya story broke.


“This would be legal if, and only if, the attorney was working on campaign matters,” he said.

He then revealed smoking gun #2: a statement by Trump’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, who claimed the Secret Service vetted the people involved in the meeting. If this statement is accurate, Olbermann argued, it could only apply, at that point in the campaign, to a meeting attended by Trump himself or one of great importance to him. The Secret Service has denied Sekulow’s statement, saying the meeting was never cleared with them.

So what is Sekulow referring to? If the Secret Service was involved in any way touching the meeting, then so was the president. If they were not involved, Trump’s lawyer is telling a bald-faced lie.

Trump’s potential involvement in the meeting, Olbermann said, could constitute espionage—and Trump’s signing off on the initial statement, drafted aboard Air Force One, claiming the meeting was about “adoption”—could constitute obstruction of justice on its face.

Watch:

What do you think?

*Please let us know in the comments section below!*

please like our page for more update
3 Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.