Yes, the context is that Hillary emails were used to entice the meeting, but you claim that it had nothing to do with it. It was an educational trip, like the Obama ones you pointed to. Wait....
Using those emails in the discussion in the first place, is that sort. You are glossing over that fact, as if it didn’t happen. You are reading into context of the discussion, by ignoring that her emails were explicitly mentioned.It goes on to detail that Papadopolous continued to set up meetings and communicate with the Professor, but it does not describe him seeking the stolen emails or setting up any meetings for the express purpose of obtaining those emails, or anything of the sort.
The evidance is that Hillary emails were part of the discussion. What exactly is wrong in saying that? You are saying that it wasn’t the intent, which you cannot read from evidance. Intent is a mater of opinion. You stating that her emails were in the discussion leading to the meeting is crystal clear. I am not adding anything to it... you are the asserting it’s role, I am saying it happened.I'd like to point out that I'm simply describing the evidence we have on hand via the plea deal. Speculation is fine, but I'm sticking with the evidence we have on hand.
He didn’t try to hide, what he lied about? What? How did he not try to hide, something he lied about?There's no evidence that Papadapolous took efforts to "hide" his meetings. Papadopolous lied to Mueller about the timeline of the meetings, not that the meetings took place.
Did Papadopolous lie about the meeting? Did Goolsbee?The Obama campaign official, Austan Goolsbee, who met with the Canadian consulate, was not the subject of a news story simply because he met with a foreign government representative, he was the subject of a news story because of what he said. Similarly, Papadopolous meeting with foreign representatives is not a story in and of itself, the subject matter they spoke about is the issue, and as I explained, the information we have available does not describe a willing exchange of stolen emails, only that stolen emails were offered, and then a frustrating lack of follow-up information about whether those emails were sought or whether meetings were set up for the express purpose of obtaining those emails.