Krauthammer Says Donald Jr. Committed a “Fatal Error”! Who Died?


Charles Krauthammer and neverTrumper establishment guy gave the mainstream some pretty strong talking points this week. The left is running with them on HuffPo, Talking Points Memo, and elsewhere. To be fair, Krauthammer had help from the careless Donald Jr. who said “I love it” when he was offered this Hillary opposition research, allegedly from Russians.

Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro disagree with Krauthammer.

Krauthammer said Donald Jr’s. words, “I love it” are the “fatal words” in the emails released by Donald Trump Jr. in the Russian meeting controversy which he discussed with Martha McCallum on Fox News.

Fatal”? Did someone die.

The fatal error

Krauthammer used the left’s hyperbolic language.

“The defense of the Trump administration for the last six months,” he explained, “which I supported, was there doesn’t appear to be a there there. I was saying this was a cover-up in search of a crime. There wasn’t any evidence of collusion. There were lots of coincidences, lots of meetings, lots of non-disclosures. But that’s all circumstantial.”

“There was nothing to show that the Trump administration was aware of,” he continued, “or supporting, the Russian interference in our elections.”

“And this just showed up today in black and white, released by Don Jr. himself,” he added. “This was not released, you know by the anti-Trump media. So you see it in black and white. This is not to say that collusion is a crime. It never was. But it is to say that the denial of collusion is very weak right now because it looks as if — I don’t know that there’s any other explanation — Don Jr. was receptive to receiving this information.”

MacCallum asked, “Is that in and of itself, you know, collusion, when there was absolutely no fruit from the actual meeting? There’s nothing there after the meeting is over?”

“Well, it’s a hell of a defense to say that your collusion was incompetent,” Krauthammer replied, “and that it didn’t work out.”

He has a point, but why isn’t he talking about all the Democrat collusion and the fact that they colluded with the Ukrainians on their soil? Or that the Democrats are tied to this Russian lawyer in a number of ways.

Ben Shapiro, a lawyer at The Daily Wire, says there is no collusion

Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro pointed out, “even if every allegation” about the meeting is substantiated by concrete evidence, it’s “not evidence of any working relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”

“At best, it’s evidence that Trump Jr. and Co. weren’t averse to attempts to feed them information,” wrote Shapiro. “But as all accounts of the meeting state, no actual information was transferred, which means that there’s still no Trump-Russia collusion.”

Mark Levin made the same argument.

There is no crime, however, despite the left’s rampages



  1. Whether one uses the legal definition or any colloquial usage there is no collusion here. Collusion implies a conspiracy and according to the email there is neither. The main factor that is considered detrimental is the mention of Russian support for Trump yet Don Jr. fails to even acknowledge this, even though there are numerous references in different ways. It SHOULD be suspicious to all these pundits WHY a publicist would include SO many references, UNTIL someone points THIS out.

    We have to realize that ALL these programs are designed to placate each other in the media environment. Notice that the coverage never includes the concerns of the people and Their lives. It would be interesting to determine how often these media shows only speak to each other as opposed to someone Outside those circles. The arrogance is on display when each considers the other as experts as well as themselves, when neither do any research of their own.

  2. CK is a NWO sophist fraud. After attacking Trump constantly for months, he quieted down after the election. His attacks and predictions were false. Then he played a pretend conservative, though he has no significant conservative positions. In that stage he is attempting to win over his audience again. He lies in wait for the right moment to resume his irrational attacks. He is very selective in what he discusses. He gears his presentations towards both winning an audience while pleasing Fox, and committing to as little policy as possible. That is hardly a brilliant person or an objective one. I learn nothing of any significance from this gossiper.

Comments are closed.