The variety of explanations for that meeting having taken place is extremely self-defeating.
It was about adoption. Benign of course except turns out it wasn't about adoption at all
It was about getting information on an opponent. Perfectly legal. Everyone does it.
So if it were perfectly legal and typical of political campaigns and ordinary and normal what purpose did lying about it serve? So you see the liars can't even foresee how the things they say are connected and self-incriminatory. It was about adoption. It wasn't about adoption it was about gathering information on an opponent. What will the next iteration be and who will float it and do you believe it?
