Dateline July 7, here.
A hypothetical - after Trump Jr. met with the Russian lady lawyer; Jarad and the then-campaign-chief Manafort in tow; did Trump tweet or speak about Clinton emails more than previously; is there a timeline?
What exactly did the Trump Jr. emails say, and how else but obvious ways can they be read? Surfacing now, not earlier, must be its own story too.
Comic relief.
UPDATE: About a month after that foursome meeting, Seth Rich was murdered. For now, an isolated data point. But - what if . . .
FURTHER UPDATE: WND has the only timeline Crabgrass could find re Seth Rich; with no info online of when he began work for DNC, or what his duties were during his tenure there up to his death. Zippo online, it appears.
Curiously, about a week after Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer met, the WND timeline [not second-sourced] has its first entry:
If WaPo had its Russian hacking story June 14, days after Trump Jr. etc., then presume DNC had notice around then and began an internal investigation of its email system log files; including that part belonging to Seth Rich and his system access record. Comey claimed DNC denied the FBI voluntary access to DNC computers, and there was never any subpoena. It was an instance of an imperative sentence being not a command, but a polite request, from appearances. Presuming the FBI through the spook network already knew what was there, no need to press the issue would exist. Presuming they did not, why in the world was the issue NOT pressed? As in, "Show me the Bear tracks." That loose string has never been tied off in public in any sane manner.
Shot in the back and NOT robbed, wallet and watch left on the body.
FURTHER UPDATE: Crowdstrike was the DNC tech guru consultant/operative firm [sand bur] that "found" Bear tracks at DNC. Meaning that firm's minions had open and full access to the DNC system - servers and stations - which was denied Comey; and that would have to include logs of Seth Rich activity anywhere within the system without any hint Rich had Snowden levels of sys-admin skills to go with his employment. That Bear facts link was on the web dated June 15, 2016, so previously the firm had to have done its sleuthing to reach its conclusions. Close to the Trump Jr. et al. confabing at Trump Tower. However productive it was, Trump Jr.'s recollection is it was not. Not being there, I have no corroborating or contradicting evidence. But it seems the meeting was kept under a hat for a lengthy time; causes for that being outside of today's public domain knowledge.
And, since the Bears were alleged Russian, and a Russian national met with DJT Jr and colleagues; let's keep things Russian - Crowdstrike having the access Comey's FBI lacked to DNC hardware and logs; look here, here, and the extended fine story here.
Seth Rich in the story was not a Russian, and searching the web might more likely than not show that the hospital treating staff was not either.
Although finding hospital attending staff names on the web might be a search for someone else, starting here might help. And, well, gee. If that is not fake news, it is intriguing. And if it is fake news, it's genesis would be a fine thing to learn.
FURTHER UPDATE: Something seems missing from the Trump Jr. release - there is the email exchange representing damaging negative Clinton info, then, for example, Business Insider reports:
Trump Jr. on Sunday said the meeting was set up on the premise that Veselnitskaya would provide damaging information on Clinton, but he said that material was never presented. Instead, he said, in a roughly 30-minute meeting Veselnitskaya pivoted to discussing the Magnitsky Act, a US law blacklisting Russians accused of human-rights abuses that so enraged Putin that he retaliated by barring US citizens from adopting Russian children.
" ... none was presented ... " begs the question of what was discussed. Seguing to a possible quid pro quo thing, if having mentioned info of a general nature - without presenting it - surely is within the parameters describing the meeting as set out above. Was Wikileaks as an outlet discussed? Who knows but those present, and that question is adroitly skirted in what appears to be part of an official statement.
Later in the linked item Trump Jr. is quoted, two paragraphs:
"To everyone, in order to be totally transparent, I am releasing the entire email chain of my emails with Rob Goldstone about the meeting on June 9, 2016. The first email on June 3, 2016 was from Rob, who was relating a request from Emin, a person I knew from the 2013 Ms. Universe Pageant near Moscow. Emin and his father have a very highly respected company in Moscow. The information they suggested they had about Hillary Clinton I thought was political opposition research."
"I first wanted to just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet," he continued. "I decided to take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky Act. To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian fever was in vogue. As Rob Goldstone just said today in the press, the entire meeting was the 'most inane nonsense I ever heard. And I was actually agitated by it.'"
The italicized language, doubtlessly vetted by an attorney before being released, does not say what would be more reassuring " ... that she had no information to provide us or anyone else, then or at any later time, under any conditions ... ". It seems feasible under the released statement that existence of info, if not then "presented," might have been discussed with impact of possible third-party publication also discussed; and with Wikileak being mentioned in such a context and all that if it happened would not make the formal released statement a direct lie, only phrased in an incomplete and arguable misleading way. If that was a part of the conversation. The public has not been told of any detail of the conversation beyond things the Russian meeting participant would like to see changed. There is that loose thread needing tying off one way or another. Curiously, Trump Sr. raved about worry over recording of things at Trump Tower. Without any particular circumstantial context given in the raving. Was there worry that a contact between a Russian national and U.S. citizens that day in Trump Tower was swept up full and intact as part of the giant sucking vacuum that is the U.S. intelligence community? That an actual recording of the meeting in full might be stored in some obscure NSA data site in Utah?
These are questions. Some official named Mueller or working for him should be looking into answers and evidence, so another shoe might drop. Absent that we can only guess and wonder about why a more definitive statement about the meeting is lacking. Having nothing to present at that time differs greatly from having nothing. Words. Facts. Speculations. This Trump Jr. meeting bit has all three.
Yet stepping back a bit: If there was Russian held info of misconduct by either or both Clinton spouses, even if obtained by questionable hacking, the plain factual matter having the greatest interest to an electorate on the eve of Presidential voting would be the info itself, what, if any, misconduct a wannabe-President and/or a former President together or separately might have engaged in during the course of each being during his/her lifetime little besides a career politician and becoming together a multi-millionaire pair of spouses out of that career. That's still the most relevant question. And it always was. What Podesta's emails said being more relevant - to a voting public - than the ways and means by which they went from private to published.
FURTHER NOTE: The cited Business Insider item, again online here, includes the text and headers of the released emails, so readers can read them and draw their own conclusions of how important they may be - and how important the full disclosure of all things discussed at that meeting might be. That news outlet presenting the evidence itself instead of only commentary about it, is an example of better journalism and we citizens should have more if it from every news outlet.