Good Ol Joe and the DOJ

[Guest]

@Waterboy said:
Two whole people, huh?  Too bad they didn’t have an opinion piece with Mitt Romney contributing.  

I would have thought a Russian propagandist would have a better retort.  Here is a description of the two authors:

As the Times notes, this is not Resistance porn; it is the product of two well-known conservative legal scholars who “are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.”  https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/does-the-constitution-disqualify

The Bulwark goes on:  "Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, told the Times that the article was “a tour de force.”"

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

@Waterboy said:
Two whole people, huh?  Too bad they didn’t have an opinion piece with Mitt Romney contributing.  

I would have thought a Russian propagandist would have a better retort.  Here is a description of the two authors:

As the Times notes, this is not Resistance porn; it is the product of two well-known conservative legal scholars who “are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.”  https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/does-the-constitution-disqualify

The Bulwark goes on:  "Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, told the Times that the article was “a tour de force.”"

@VikingOracle said:

@Waterboy said:
Two whole people, huh?  Too bad they didn’t have an opinion piece with Mitt Romney contributing.  

I would have thought a Russian propagandist would have a better retort.  Here is a description of the two authors:

As the Times notes, this is not Resistance porn; it is the product of two well-known conservative legal scholars who “are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.”  https://morning.thebulwark.com/p/does-the-constitution-disqualify

The Bulwark goes on:  "Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, told the Times that the article was “a tour de force.”"

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

@"

Didn't expect this article today, despite the timing, sometimes a coincidence is a coincidence:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said Thursday that Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser while in office, “crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House."  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/4148951-comer-says-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-with-saudi-deal/  

I saw this over the weekend as well.  I was going to post.  As I said before, I have less issue with this than I have with former Defense Secretarys giving contracts and than accepting positions with Government contractors...or Government officials that come back as (registered / unregistered) foreign agents and lobby the government.  I have Private Equity firms approach me with great regularity to purchase my company.  Almost all of them have the same profile...30 or 40 something, Harvard MBA.  At least Kushner has demonstrated previous success.  If you're starting a PE company these days...the money has to come from somebody with large cash reserves.  The difficulty and cost of financing a corporate purchase makes it prohibitive until rates go down and difficulty with getting money loosens up.  The normal PE business model is to just turn one company over to finance their next conquest.  Comer knows what Kushner is doing isn't illegal so he answered the whataboutism question from Tapper to keep the focus on Hunter Biden.  Honestly, the two aren't even comparable.  Everyone makes a big deal out of the Middle East financing for Kushner but the reality is they're in it to make money.  They let Kusher identify purchase targets and business operating plans and they decide how to spend their money.  If they make money...Kushner makes money.  If the Government wants to limit these types of things...they should regulate it.  Not sure how you regulate working with people you've met during your time in government in cases where that work doesn't involve Government solicitation.  I agree completely there should be a time period in which departing Government employees can't solicit the US Government in any capacity.  Not sure how you deal with private transactions.  At some point, good people won't want to work for the Government because it handcuffs you when you leave.

Speaking of Tapper...did you see him throw shade on the Special Counsel appointment saying it sounded sketchy?  A rare break from the party line for CNN.  So...you appoint the guy who was giving the sweetheart deal to Hunter as Special Counsel offering no jail time and immunity from prosecution.  He immediately drops the case in Delaware and is now Judge/jurisdiction shopping in California and DC where you can find a more favorable Judge.  As you said earlier, at least the checks and balances worked in Hunter's case since the Judge stepped in and nullified the plea deal.   The newly minted Special Counsel can now eliminate the check and balance by eliminating the offending Judge.  Like I said earlier, it smells a lot like the Hillary Clinton email scandal to me except Hillary was eventually "interviewed" only after everybody around her was granted immunity from prosecution and she was told she wouldn't be prosecuted.  Weiss never interviewed Hunter Biden.  Hunter was apparently tipped off prior to an interview.  Another item of note....Garland also has limited the scope of the investigation.  Weiss is only tasked with investigating Hunter...he is not allowed to follow the money.  So...we're already putting guardrails up to protect the President.  Can you imagine if Hunter was a Trump?  We'd likely be talking Treason at this point.  Now we can draw this thing out and negotiate a plea deal for Hunter and let the media and Dems claim this was investigated thoroughly and nothing of substance was found...and Joe is completely exonerated.  Care to wager the outcome?  It's a sucker bet.

I also question why we need a Special Counsel.  Based on the Whistleblower testimony, Weiss was jurisdictionally limited and therefore couldn't investigate crimes in other jurisdictions (even though he could offer broad immunity in the plea deal).  The Attorney General assured us under oath that Weiss had full authority to investigate accross jurisdictions.  Evidently, he lied and thus the call for a Special Counsel (who incidentally is the same guy...different title).  Did Weiss previously have full authority as Garland told Congress or not?  Why appoint the same guy unless you're trying to get the same result?

[Guest]

@badgervike said:

@VikingOracle said:

@"

Didn't expect this article today, despite the timing, sometimes a coincidence is a coincidence:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said Thursday that Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser while in office, “crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House."  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/4148951-comer-says-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-with-saudi-deal/  

I saw this over the weekend as well.  I was going to post.  As I said before, I have less issue with this than I have with former Defense Secretarys giving contracts and than accepting positions with Government contractors...or Government officials that come back as (registered / unregistered) foreign agents and lobby the government.  I have Private Equity firms approach me with great regularity to purchase my company.  Almost all of them have the same profile...30 or 40 something, Harvard MBA.  At least Kushner has demonstrated previous success.  If you're starting a PE company these days...the money has to come from somebody with large cash reserves.  The difficulty and cost of financing a corporate purchase makes it prohibitive until rates go down and difficulty with getting money loosens up.  The normal PE business model is to just turn one company over to finance their next conquest.  Comer knows what Kushner is doing isn't illegal so he answered the whataboutism question from Tapper to keep the focus on Hunter Biden.  Honestly, the two aren't even comparable.  Everyone makes a big deal out of the Middle East financing for Kushner but the reality is they're in it to make money.  They let Kusher identify purchase targets and business operating plans and they decide how to spend their money.  If they make money...Kushner makes money.  If the Government wants to limit these types of things...they should regulate it.  Not sure how you regulate working with people you've met during your time in government in cases where that work doesn't involve Government solicitation.  I agree completely there should be a time period in which departing Government employees can't solicit the US Government in any capacity.  Not sure how you deal with private transactions.  At some point, good people won't want to work for the Government because it handcuffs you when you leave.

Speaking of Tapper...did you see him throw shade on the Special Counsel appointment saying it sounded sketchy?  A rare break from the party line for CNN.  So...you appoint the guy who was giving the sweetheart deal to Hunter as Special Counsel offering no jail time and immunity from prosecution.  He immediately drops the case in Delaware and is now Judge/jurisdiction shopping in California and DC where you can find a more favorable Judge.  As you said earlier, at least the checks and balances worked in Hunter's case since the Judge stepped in and nullified the plea deal.   The newly minted Special Counsel can now eliminate the check and balance by eliminating the offending Judge.  Like I said earlier, it smells a lot like the Hillary Clinton email scandal to me except Hillary was eventually "interviewed" only after everybody around her was granted immunity from prosecution and she was told she wouldn't be prosecuted.  Weiss never interviewed Hunter Biden.  Hunter was apparently tipped off prior to an interview.  Another item of note....Garland also has limited the scope of the investigation.  Weiss is only tasked with investigating Hunter...he is not allowed to follow the money.  So...we're already putting guardrails up to protect the President.  Can you imagine if Hunter was a Trump?  We'd likely be talking Treason at this point.  Now we can draw this thing out and negotiate a plea deal for Hunter and let the media and Dems claim this was investigated thoroughly and nothing of substance was found...and Joe is completely exonerated.  Care to wager the outcome?  It's a sucker bet.

I also question why we need a Special Counsel.  Based on the Whistleblower testimony, Weiss was jurisdictionally limited and therefore couldn't investigate crimes in other jurisdictions (even though he could offer broad immunity in the plea deal).  The Attorney General assured us under oath that Weiss had full authority to investigate accross jurisdictions.  Evidently, he lied and thus the call for a Special Counsel (who incidentally is the same guy...different title).  Did Weiss previously have full authority as Garland told Congress or not?  Why appoint the same guy unless you're trying to get the same result?

Your patience and thoroughness are to be commended.  The most obvious scenario is the real scenario here.  What it appears to be is what it is.  This DOJ will stop at nothing to prosecute one side while giving a free pass to the other.  They know that by throwing all these curveballs that they delay anything of substance coming out about Hunter and Joe until their preferred moment, and that they litter the airwaves with BS charges against Trump.  Trump isn't entirely clean by any means, but he's tidy as compared to the pigpen of corruption surrounding Joe and family.  

[Guest]

@badgervike said:

@VikingOracle said:

@"

Didn't expect this article today, despite the timing, sometimes a coincidence is a coincidence:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said Thursday that Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser while in office, “crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House."  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/4148951-comer-says-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-with-saudi-deal/  

Not sure how you regulate working with people you've met during your time in government in cases where that work doesn't involve Government solicitation.  I agree completely there should be a time period in which departing Government employees can't solicit the US Government in any capacity.  Not sure how you deal with private transactions.  At some point, good people won't want to work for the Government because it handcuffs you when you leave.

Badger:

I think we have some overlap of agreement: (a) if feasible, there needs to be some oversight/law regarding jobs taken by former high-level government official and their family members and (b) the choice of special counsel was horrible from an optics standpoint (I could give reasons why it was okay, but optics matter).  On point (a): "t is not unusual for insiders from both parties to benefit financially from deals abroad after leaving government service, particularly in the Middle East. There is a long history of firms populated by former officials from Democratic administrations signing lucrative contracts with Gulf nations, and there are few laws or ethics guidelines prohibiting it.  But the scale of the investments Kushner’s venture has received from the Gulf countries — in the range of $2.5 billion — and the timing, coming relatively soon after his leaving the White House, are striking and have drawn criticism from Democrats and ethics experts."  https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl...and-qatar/

As for Jared:

• "Kushner, who is the son-in-law of President Donald Trump, and the crown prince had a late October meeting in Riyadh. A week later, Mohammed began what he called an “anti-corruption crackdown.” The Saudi government arrested and jailed dozens of members of the Saudi royal family in a Riyadh hotel – among them Saudi figures named in a daily classified brief read by the president and his closest advisers that Kushner read avidly before he lost his top-secret security clearance in February, The Intercept reported Thursday.  According to the report, Mohammed told confidants that he and Kushner discussed Saudis identified in the classified brief as disloyal to Mohammed."   https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "The Saudi crown prince bragged to the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and others that he had Kushner “in his pocket,” an unnamed source who talks frequently to confidants of the Saudi and Emirati rulers told The Intercept."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "Trump’s support in May of an economic blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE over the objections of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest for Kushner. The blockade came after former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani declined an offer to invest in the Kushner Company’s flagship building in Manhattan, which is now in financial crisis."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
  
• This blockade was lifted, "around the same time, according to The Real Deal, Brookfield Asset Management, paid $1.28 billion for a ground-floor lease at 666 Fifth, helping the company with its debt situation. The group's second-largest stakeholder at the time was the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar, leading some to accuse Kushner of trading favorable political maneuvers in order to help his family's business."  https://www.newsweek.com/kushners-financial-link-qatar-ticking-time-bomb-biographer-1766537; see also, "Qatar refurse to invest in Kushner's firm.  Weeks later, Jared backed a blockade of Qatar."  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qatar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html

[Guest]

(munching popcorn and grinning at the sh*tshow)

It's just amazing...and hilarious, except that people are harmed by the fallout...at how hard some people will lie, distort, and contradict themselves over and over to defend someone's who's been proven to be consistently lying...so, they work to look like the dumbest turds in a bowl of BS.

The focus of this is pretty obvious, nowadays, but let's face it...the same stink is attached to everyone trying to defend their "main party" champions, isn't it?

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

@badgervike said:

@VikingOracle said:

@"

Didn't expect this article today, despite the timing, sometimes a coincidence is a coincidence:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said Thursday that Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser while in office, “crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House."  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/4148951-comer-says-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-with-saudi-deal/  

Not sure how you regulate working with people you've met during your time in government in cases where that work doesn't involve Government solicitation.  I agree completely there should be a time period in which departing Government employees can't solicit the US Government in any capacity.  Not sure how you deal with private transactions.  At some point, good people won't want to work for the Government because it handcuffs you when you leave.

Badger:

I think we have some overlap of agreement: (a) if feasible, there needs to be some oversight/law regarding jobs taken by former high-level government official and their family members and (b) the choice of special counsel was horrible from an optics standpoint (I could give reasons why it was okay, but optics matter).  On point (a): "t is not unusual for insiders from both parties to benefit financially from deals abroad after leaving government service, particularly in the Middle East. There is a long history of firms populated by former officials from Democratic administrations signing lucrative contracts with Gulf nations, and there are few laws or ethics guidelines prohibiting it.  But the scale of the investments Kushner’s venture has received from the Gulf countries — in the range of $2.5 billion — and the timing, coming relatively soon after his leaving the White House, are striking and have drawn criticism from Democrats and ethics experts."  https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl...and-qatar/

As for Jared:

• "Kushner, who is the son-in-law of President Donald Trump, and the crown prince had a late October meeting in Riyadh. A week later, Mohammed began what he called an “anti-corruption crackdown.” The Saudi government arrested and jailed dozens of members of the Saudi royal family in a Riyadh hotel – among them Saudi figures named in a daily classified brief read by the president and his closest advisers that Kushner read avidly before he lost his top-secret security clearance in February, The Intercept reported Thursday.  According to the report, Mohammed told confidants that he and Kushner discussed Saudis identified in the classified brief as disloyal to Mohammed."   https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "The Saudi crown prince bragged to the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and others that he had Kushner “in his pocket,” an unnamed source who talks frequently to confidants of the Saudi and Emirati rulers told The Intercept."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "Trump’s support in May of an economic blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE over the objections of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest for Kushner. The blockade came after former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani declined an offer to invest in the Kushner Company’s flagship building in Manhattan, which is now in financial crisis."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
  
• This blockade was lifted, "around the same time, according to The Real Deal, Brookfield Asset Management, paid $1.28 billion for a ground-floor lease at 666 Fifth, helping the company with its debt situation. The group's second-largest stakeholder at the time was the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar, leading some to accuse Kushner of trading favorable political maneuvers in order to help his family's business."  https://www.newsweek.com/kushners-financial-link-qatar-ticking-time-bomb-biographer-1766537; see also, "Qatar refurse to invest in Kushner's firm.  Weeks later, Jared backed a blockade of Qatar."  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qatar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html

This is an amazing amount of nothing.  lol Did you mention the peace deals that Kushner hammered out in the Mideast?  Didn't think so... Instead, you link highly opinionated pieces from early in his administration from people known to lie. If there were ANY truth to substantive charges against Trump, it would have instantly been an impeachment inquiry because that's all the Libs did Trump's whole time in office.   Solving Mideast Peace used to be a joke, yet Trump made solid progress on doing it.  

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

Badger:

I think we have some overlap of agreement: (a) if feasible, there needs to be some oversight/law regarding jobs taken by former high-level government official and their family members and (b) the choice of special counsel was horrible from an optics standpoint (I could give reasons why it was okay, but optics matter).  On point (a): "t is not unusual for insiders from both parties to benefit financially from deals abroad after leaving government service, particularly in the Middle East. There is a long history of firms populated by former officials from Democratic administrations signing lucrative contracts with Gulf nations, and there are few laws or ethics guidelines prohibiting it.  But the scale of the investments Kushner’s venture has received from the Gulf countries — in the range of $2.5 billion — and the timing, coming relatively soon after his leaving the White House, are striking and have drawn criticism from Democrats and ethics experts."  https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/kushners-firm-was-backed-by-investments-from-the-emirates-and-qatar/

The choice of Weiss was horrible from an optics standpoint?  It was also horrible from a legal point of view.  

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/ch...I/part-600
600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.


(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)©.
Notice the part where the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the US Government?  That's because they're also investigating the propriety of the DOJ in questions of partiality/conflict of interest.  You want to tell me how Weiss fits into those requirements?  I guess laws don't matter to the DOJ...or maybe Garland has a hard time understanding the three paragraphs describing the requirements for a Special Counsel.  To think I once felt sorry for him that he didn't get his up or down vote.
Please also tell me why Weiss is distinctly not allowed to follow the money?  The DOJ has supposedly been investigating this for years...I think they already know the answer.  We best gather up 50 former Intelligence officials before the election and tell you this investigation has all the hallmarks of Russian Disinformation

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

@

As for Jared:

• "Kushner, who is the son-in-law of President Donald Trump, and the crown prince had a late October meeting in Riyadh. A week later, Mohammed began what he called an “anti-corruption crackdown.” The Saudi government arrested and jailed dozens of members of the Saudi royal family in a Riyadh hotel – among them Saudi figures named in a daily classified brief read by the president and his closest advisers that Kushner read avidly before he lost his top-secret security clearance in February, The Intercept reported Thursday.  According to the report, Mohammed told confidants that he and Kushner discussed Saudis identified in the classified brief as disloyal to Mohammed."   https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "The Saudi crown prince bragged to the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and others that he had Kushner “in his pocket,” an unnamed source who talks frequently to confidants of the Saudi and Emirati rulers told The Intercept."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "Trump’s support in May of an economic blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE over the objections of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest for Kushner. The blockade came after former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani declined an offer to invest in the Kushner Company’s flagship building in Manhattan, which is now in financial crisis."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
  
• This blockade was lifted, "around the same time, according to The Real Deal, Brookfield Asset Management, paid $1.28 billion for a ground-floor lease at 666 Fifth, helping the company with its debt situation. The group's second-largest stakeholder at the time was the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar, leading some to accuse Kushner of trading favorable political maneuvers in order to help his family's business."  https://www.newsweek.com/kushners-financial-link-qatar-ticking-time-bomb-biographer-1766537; see also, "Qatar refurse to invest in Kushner's firm.  Weeks later, Jared backed a blockade of Qatar."  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qatar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html

Did you actually read that stuff?  From the Newsweek article alone (via MSNBC)...

"Kushner might have been
negotiating favorable business deals" 


"If there were such a
conflict of interest, if he did conduct foreign policy in the Middle East",
Pretty hard hitting stuff...lol.  From the same network who gave you 1000s of hours of Russian Collusion coverage.

Again, I'm a Libertarian...so no main party axe to grind...if Kushner did something wrong (under current laws), he should be held responsible.  You honestly don't think the DOJ has investigated?  They've investigated everyone else in Trump World.  The lightly sourced innuendo to sell a book is nonsense.  Didn't y'all learn anything from the Russian Collusion nonsense?

[Guest]

@badgervike said:

@VikingOracle said:

@

As for Jared:

• "Kushner, who is the son-in-law of President Donald Trump, and the crown prince had a late October meeting in Riyadh. A week later, Mohammed began what he called an “anti-corruption crackdown.” The Saudi government arrested and jailed dozens of members of the Saudi royal family in a Riyadh hotel – among them Saudi figures named in a daily classified brief read by the president and his closest advisers that Kushner read avidly before he lost his top-secret security clearance in February, The Intercept reported Thursday.  According to the report, Mohammed told confidants that he and Kushner discussed Saudis identified in the classified brief as disloyal to Mohammed."   https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "The Saudi crown prince bragged to the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and others that he had Kushner “in his pocket,” an unnamed source who talks frequently to confidants of the Saudi and Emirati rulers told The Intercept."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
• "Trump’s support in May of an economic blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE over the objections of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest for Kushner. The blockade came after former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani declined an offer to invest in the Kushner Company’s flagship building in Manhattan, which is now in financial crisis."  https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917
  
• This blockade was lifted, "around the same time, according to The Real Deal, Brookfield Asset Management, paid $1.28 billion for a ground-floor lease at 666 Fifth, helping the company with its debt situation. The group's second-largest stakeholder at the time was the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar, leading some to accuse Kushner of trading favorable political maneuvers in order to help his family's business."  https://www.newsweek.com/kushners-financial-link-qatar-ticking-time-bomb-biographer-1766537; see also, "Qatar refurse to invest in Kushner's firm.  Weeks later, Jared backed a blockade of Qatar."  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qatar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html

Did you actually read that stuff?  From the Newsweek article alone (via MSNBC)...

"Kushner might have been
negotiating favorable business deals" 


"If there were such a
conflict of interest, if he did conduct foreign policy in the Middle East",
Pretty hard hitting stuff...lol.  From the same network who gave you 1000s of hours of Russian Collusion coverage.

Again, I'm a Libertarian...so no main party axe to grind...if Kushner did something wrong (under current laws), he should be held responsible.  You honestly don't think the DOJ has investigated?  They've investigated everyone else in Trump World.  The lightly sourced innuendo to sell a book is nonsense.  Didn't y'all learn anything from the Russian Collusion nonsense?

Umm, but you have so many areas of agreement.  LOL   Oracle might as well be attaching Editorial pages at this point to try to support his arguments on factual matters.   Dammit, Kushner and therefore Trump is guilty because a liberal writer thought he was seven years ago with no substantiating evidence.  You know the same kind of evidence that is in clear sight for anybody looking as pertain to Hunter and Joe.