The Golden Couple (Ivanka and Jared)

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, milkteeth said:

Charles Kushner had to donate 2.5 million to Harvard in order for his fail-son to get in. His high school described him as a "less than stellar student" 

 

 

You would think that these schools would realize that this practice is well-known and that it effects their reputation negatively. When I encounter someone who has a degree from Harvard, Yale, Princeton it makes me take a close look at them.

Duke, ha, Duke. I've know several people who graduated from Duke. There are those that have the name on advanced degrees on their walls in their offices and probably earned them. But some of the others are running around an office with their hair on fire, giving orders. These have an arrogance about them and I smell money. 

[GrumpyGran]

Oh, and in case you missed it, Tiffany is going to Georgetown Law School next month.   Why? The woman doesn't strike me as the lawyer type. AT ALL. So Daddy wants to pull her in for more PR opportunities. And Tiff wants to be closer to the bright lights and the gravy train?

She'll give him an A+, he'll give her $$$$ and praise to fuel her career, oh, I know, I know! FOX News! Dollars to donuts, it will happen unless he crashes and burns before she makes it there.

[AuntK]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

Oh, and in case you missed it, Tiffany is going to Georgetown Law School next month.   Why? The woman doesn't strike me as the lawyer type. AT ALL. So Daddy wants to pull her in for more PR opportunities. And Tiff wants to be closer to the bright lights and the gravy train?

She'll give him an A+, he'll give her $$$$ and praise to fuel her career, oh, I know, I know! FOX News! Dollars to donuts, it will happen unless he crashes and burns before she makes it there.

Tiff doesn't strike me as a stellar scholar either, but I don't really know. She certainly hasn't had any role models in that area! And a lawyer? PUH- LEEZ! Law school is no cakewalk and if she thinks she's going to be Elle Woods, she is seriously mistaken. Law school is hell, then you have the Bar Exam.  No waivers for trust fund babies!

[candygirl200413]

So I have peers who knew her via greek life and through friends that were friends with her. Yes she wasn't really smart, but she was definitely a try hard to please her disgusting father. Many were also surprised she decided on law school but again trying to please dad. She's basically smarter then her siblings but does try to actually use some type of worth ethic

(also for some reason I feel for Tiffany, mainly cause have the same birthday, and she just wants love/attention from her dipshit horrible excuse of a father)

[AuntK]

I feel sorry for Tiffany because it seems like she is always pushed to the back and is the forgotten child. Plus, there have been stories about her father wanting Marla to get an abortion upon his learning of the pregnancy.  She can't help who her sperm donor is.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Jared Kushner has had to update his disclosure of foreign contacts more than once"

Spoiler

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is likely to be interested in Jared Kushner’s evolving disclosure of foreign contacts during the security clearance process, legal analysts said, and it is possible that the president’s son-in-law could be in legal jeopardy for not fully detailing the interactions from the start.

Kushner, one of President Trump’s closest advisers, has filed three updates to his national security questionnaire since submitting it in mid-January, according to people familiar with the matter. That is significant because the document — known as an SF-86 — warns that those who submit false information could be charged with a federal crime and face up to five years in prison.

Prosecutions for filing erroneous SF-86 forms are rare — though the Justice Department has brought cases against those with intentional omissions, and people have been denied security clearance for incorrect forms, legal analysts said.

Under the microscope of Mueller’s investigation, the analysts said, Kushner’s mistakes might be viewed as evidence that Kushner met with Russian officials, then tried to keep anyone from finding out. His representatives contend that the omissions were honest errors that were corrected quickly.

“Mueller’s task is examining whether he thinks there’s evidence that this was not simply a mistake or an oversight, but was actually a deliberate attempt to conceal these contacts,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who specializes in public corruption and government fraud. “And if that’s the case, that’s definitely potentially a crime.”

The SF-86 is a 127-page form that requests voluminous information about a person’s employment history, finances, family, travel and other matters. The form asks several questions about foreign contacts, requiring applicants to list any “close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven years,” along with any contact with a representative of a foreign government.

The form is a part of a person’s background check for certain federal jobs and is meant to ascertain whether the person can be awarded a security clearance.

Legal analysts said it is not uncommon for people to forget information; nor is it uncommon for officials to encounter difficulty in the security clearance process.

Kushner’s national security questionnaire was first submitted on Jan. 18, though a person familiar with his account said that his office did so prematurely, and the form did not list his foreign contacts and got the dates of his graduate degrees and his father-in-law’s address wrong.

The next day, Kushner’s representatives submitted an addendum acknowledging that he had foreign contacts and saying that he would willingly detail them, the person said.

At the time, Kushner’s representatives had not compiled a list of the contacts, but they did so and submitted another addendum with them in mid-May, before an interview with FBI background investigators, the person said. The addendum detailed more than 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which came during the presidential transition, according to Jamie Gorelick, one of Kushner’s attorneys.

“Jared was trying to be fully compliant and upfront and transparent in this process, and when he learned that the document had been prematurely submitted, he was very clear that we should correct the record on that,” Gorelick said.

On June 21, Kushner submitted another addendum; this one listed the meeting he attended — along with Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign manager at the time — with a Russian lawyer who Trump Jr. believed had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

A person close to Kushner said he did not remember the meeting with the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, when submitting his list of foreign contacts in mid-May. The person said his lawyers discovered correspondence about it while reviewing emails to turn over information to congressional investigators. Gorelick said the meeting was included “out of an abundance of caution.”

“As Mr. Kushner has consistently stated, he is eager to cooperate and share what he knows,” Gorelick said.

Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer, said he believes that a disclosure of the meeting would not have been required, because Veselnitskaya is not now a government lawyer and Kushner does not have a close or continuing relationship with her.

“Too many people are imposing requirements on him that don’t exist,” Zaid said. The person familiar with Kushner’s account said he was interviewed by the FBI after supplementing his disclosure in June. The agents interviewing him were doing so as part of the background check process, the person said. It is unclear if Kushner also was approached by Mueller’s office.

Still, Zaid said that Kushner’s earlier, flawed SF-86 form was “problematic,” and that if “Jared Kushner were just Jared Simpson who was up for a job at the Defense Department, he would be in much hotter water with respect to an agency adjudicating his clearance based on his Russian contacts.”

The person familiar with his account declined to speak about that topic, and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office also declined to comment. The Washington Post has previously reported that the special counsel is interested in Kushner’s contacts with Russians in December.

If prosecutors were to try to bring charges against Kushner connected to his filings, they would have to prove that his omissions were intentional. Earlier this year, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent was sentenced to one year of probation in a case in which he and a colleague were convicted of lying about their employment at an adult entertainment club and their relationship with a Brazilian national who danced there. The prosecution was led in part by Andrew D. Goldstein, then an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. He has since joined Mueller’s team.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also indicated on a security clearance form that he had not had any contact with a foreign government official — even though he met with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, twice last year. An aide said that he was told by the FBI investigator handling the background check that Sessions need not list meetings with foreign dignitaries in connection with Senate activities.

Edward B. MacMahon Jr., another national security lawyer in private practice, said he “can’t imagine there’s a risk of prosecution” with Kushner.

“If you’re under scrutiny, and you have electronic records that can help you fill these out to put an end to the questions, you might just do that,” MacMahon said. “Somebody will say that means you were hiding something, and somebody will say that means you were being more forthcoming. It depends on whose ox is being gored.”

But Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official who was involved in discussions about the SF-86 form many years ago, said Kushner probably fears that there is “real jeopardy” from the special counsel, and that explains his updates to his form.

“As a result of the Mueller investigation, there’s broader goals in play,” Litman said, “and certainly his lawyers are advising him, ‘Look, the game has changed here.’ ”

Even if he can't be prosecuted, he is being shady. Of course, that just makes him move higher in this administration.

[GreyhoundFan]

Slim Shady, I mean Jared, is going to testify: "Kushner to testify before Senate intel panel Monday"

Spoiler

President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner will speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session Monday as part of the panel’s widening probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

The meeting was confirmed by Kushner’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, who said that his client “is prepared to voluntarily cooperate and provide whatever information he has on the investigations to Congress,” and “appreciates the opportunity to assist in putting this matter to rest.”

Kushner is expected to answer the committee’s questions and not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, according to a person familiar with Kushner’s thinking.

The interview comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee also announced its intention to schedule former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., to testify before that panel in open session next Wednesday.

Trump Jr.’s attorney, Alan Futerfas, did not respond Wednesday evening to requests for comment about the Judiciary Committee hearing.

A lawyer for Manafort said that he and his legal team are reviewing the request and have not made a decision which committee Manafort will speak with first.

Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr. are expected to be asked about a number of reported contacts they and others had with Russians during the campaign and transition period. In particular, they are expected to be grilled about their participation in a June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer that Trump Jr. was told had Kremlin connections and could provide damaging information on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Four other individuals were also present at the meeting.

“It’s safe to say that the committee’s going to reach out to everybody we feel has some contribution to make,” Senate Intellience Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said on Wednesday. “The Don Jr. meeting as of today has potentially eight individuals. All eight of those individuals will be important to us once we know the types of questions that we need answers to.”

The Judiciary Committee also asked Manafort and Trump Jr., as well as the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign “to preserve all relevant documents related to Russian interference in the 2016 election” and to furnish the committee by Aug. 2 with documents related to the June 2016 meeting with Russians purported to have ties to the Kremlin.

Committee chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) added that they expect Manafort and Trump Jr. “will comply voluntarily with invitations to testify.” They added that they “have agreed to issue subpoenas, if necessary” for the two men.

 

[nvmbr02]

I loved this opinion piece from Cosmopolitan. I don't see Ivanka or Jared going anywhere anytime soon but still, well said!

It's Time for Jared and Ivanka to Go Their conflicts of interest are not just unfair and unethical, but potentially dangerous

Spoiler

While running for president, Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.” He promised ethics reforms, changes to lobbying rules, and other reforms to “make our government honest once again." Now, six months into his presidency, the only thing he has drained is our country’s reputation. In a sea of conflicts of interest and other gross ethical violations, among the worst has been the president doling out plum White House jobs not due to merit, but solely to reward blood and marriage. Historically, the competition for White House jobs has been extremely fierce. But Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump wouldn’t know about the vagaries of gaining government employment.

Nepotism is something more closely associated with dictatorships or puppet regimes, but it’s now been accepted with a shrug by Republicans as just how the Trump administration does business. This is the same Republican Party, of course, that howled when first lady Hillary Clinton dared take on health care reform. A loophole in the 1967 anti-nepotism statute bans the practice throughout the entirety of the federal government except the White House, where it is now needed most.

Nepotism runs in the Trump family, as it were. As with Donald Trump, Jared Kushner was passed control of the family business from his father. Now President Trump has entrusted him with the most wildly ambitious portfolio in the West Wing, covering everything from reform of a government he knows nothing about, to achieving a Middle East peace deal that has eluded career diplomats for decades. Kushner reportedlyexerts greater influence on the president than Cabinet officials like Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who achieved his four-star rank over 40-plus years of military service and handily earned Senate confirmation. Prior to her father’s inauguration, Ivanka Trump repeatedly said she didn’t want a role in the administration, instead planning to focus on her family and business. Yet there she was at the G-20 Summit, seated next to Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has served as the elected leader of one of the world’s most powerful nations for almost 12 years.

It appears, however, that Ivanka Trump need not worry. Her business is doing just fine with her in the White House — some would argue because she’s in the White House. The same day she dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, the Chinese government (no stranger to corruption) granted Ivanka Trump three long sought-after and valuable trademarks, with an additional four granted shortly thereafter. Then, President Trump diplomatically dissed the nation of Qatar after the Qataris refused to finance a Kushner real estate venture to the tune of $500 million. While we don’t know whether there are direct connections between the Trump family’s private businesses and the president’s policies, we shouldn’t even be in a position where we need to ask these questions — particularly when we consider that these conflicts of interest are not just unfair and unethical, but potentially dangerous to our national security.

Which brings us to Russia. Jared Kushner’s contacts with Russian officials have been documented for months in press reports. One place they weren’t documented, however, is on his application for a security clearance. Standard Form (SF) 86 is the voluminous questionnaire that must be completed by applicants for positions requiring a clearance. Question 20.B.6 is about as clear as you can get: “Have you or any member of your immediate family in the past seven years had any contact with a foreign government, its establishment or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S.?” Kushner’s initial response to this question was “no.” As the press continues to expose previously undisclosed meetings with Russian nationals, Kushner has repeatedly revised his SF-86 — a total of three times so far, adding over 100 foreign contacts. Kushner’s legal team has provided laughable excuses for the “oversights,” readily dismissed by anyone who’s gone through the process themselves. Under any other president, a federal employee making such omissions already would have been fired, fined, or possibly convicted — all of which are penalties available for the intentional withholding of information from investigators. But with his father-in-law as the ultimate arbiter, Kushner will most likely retain his clearance, which grants him access to some of the nation’s most sensitive intelligence despite ongoing questions about his connections to one of America’s primary adversaries. And now there are questions about whether Ivanka Trump broke the law by failing to declare her husband’s contacts on her own SF-86, as required.

The swamp the president promised to drain is only expanding, along with the Trump family fortune. Walter Shaub, the outgoing chief of the Office of Government Ethics, described Trump’s America as “close to a laughingstock” when it comes to matters of ethics and propriety. President Trump must put the Constitution he swore to uphold above family loyalty and show Jared and Ivanka the exit from the West Wing. Congress must also do its part by closing the loophole in the 1967 anti-nepotism statute. The stakes are too high for blood to take precedence over country.

 

 

 

[Flossie]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Slim Shady, I mean Jared, is going to testify: "Kushner to testify before Senate intel panel Monday"

  Hide contents

President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner will speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session Monday as part of the panel’s widening probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

The meeting was confirmed by Kushner’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, who said that his client “is prepared to voluntarily cooperate and provide whatever information he has on the investigations to Congress,” and “appreciates the opportunity to assist in putting this matter to rest.”

Kushner is expected to answer the committee’s questions and not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, according to a person familiar with Kushner’s thinking.

The interview comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee also announced its intention to schedule former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., to testify before that panel in open session next Wednesday.

Trump Jr.’s attorney, Alan Futerfas, did not respond Wednesday evening to requests for comment about the Judiciary Committee hearing.

A lawyer for Manafort said that he and his legal team are reviewing the request and have not made a decision which committee Manafort will speak with first.

Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr. are expected to be asked about a number of reported contacts they and others had with Russians during the campaign and transition period. In particular, they are expected to be grilled about their participation in a June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer that Trump Jr. was told had Kremlin connections and could provide damaging information on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Four other individuals were also present at the meeting.

“It’s safe to say that the committee’s going to reach out to everybody we feel has some contribution to make,” Senate Intellience Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said on Wednesday. “The Don Jr. meeting as of today has potentially eight individuals. All eight of those individuals will be important to us once we know the types of questions that we need answers to.”

The Judiciary Committee also asked Manafort and Trump Jr., as well as the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign “to preserve all relevant documents related to Russian interference in the 2016 election” and to furnish the committee by Aug. 2 with documents related to the June 2016 meeting with Russians purported to have ties to the Kremlin.

Committee chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) added that they expect Manafort and Trump Jr. “will comply voluntarily with invitations to testify.” They added that they “have agreed to issue subpoenas, if necessary” for the two men.

 

He can testify all he wants, but I fully expect him to lie.

[GreyhoundFan]

"In revised filing, Kushner reveals dozens of previously undisclosed assets"

Spoiler

Jared Kushner failed to disclose dozens of financial holdings that he was required to declare when he joined the White House as an adviser to President Trump, his father-in-law, according to a ­revised form released Friday.

A separate document released Friday also showed that Kushner’s wife, presidential daughter Ivanka Trump, had been paid as much as $5 million from her outside businesses over an 84-day span this spring around the time she entered the White House as a senior adviser and pledged to distance herself from her private holdings.

Kushner’s new disclosure, released by the White House, detailed more than 70 assets that his attorneys said he had inadvertently left out of earlier filings. The new document comes as the presidential aide faces increasing scrutiny as part of investigations into alleged Russian influence in the 2016 campaign.

In recent months, Kushner also has updated a national security questionnaire in which he had failed to disclose more than 100 calls or meetings with representatives from foreign countries — and he is scheduled to appear Monday at a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The new filing reveals Kushner’s past and current investments in an array of entities, including a real estate trading platform now valued at $800 million in which he continues to hold a large stake. He and his wife also disclosed that their contemporary art collection is valued at between $5 million and $25 million.

Kushner’s financial disclosure has been updated 39 times since his first filing in March.

Frequent revisions are not unusual for appointees with many holdings.

Their attorney, Jamie Gorelick, said in a statement that Kushner and Ivanka Trump “followed each of the required steps in their transition from private citizens to federal officials.”

“The Office of Government Ethics has certified Jared’s financial disclosure, reflecting its determination that his approach complies with federal ethics laws,” Gorelick said. He added that Ivanka Trump’s financial disclosure, which was filed in June, is still being reviewed by the agency.

The filings underscore the enormous wealth of the young couple, who stepped down from day-to-day management of their companies before assuming their public posts.

Kushner resigned from 266 corporate positions, and Trump stepped down from 292 positions, the documents show.

But they still control assets worth at least $139 million, along with another $66 million, at minimum, of assets that are tied to Trump’s stakes in her fashion brand, the Trump hotel in Washington and other real estate projects, according to the filings.

And they both continue to draw large sums from outside interests: The couple has jointly made at least $19 million in income from business ventures and listed more than $80 million in real estate and other revenues since the start of 2016, the documents show.

Trump gave up her right to performance-linked payments from three Trump real estate companies and instead receives fixed payments totaling $1.5 million a year. But she continues to reap a share of the profits from her fashion brand, where executives said sales climbed more than 20 percent last year and continue to rise this year.

Ivanka Trump no longer directly oversees the company, which which has come under criticism from labor advocates for its lack of oversight of its operations overseas, but she has retained ownership of her brand and is benefiting from its revenues.

Between March 9 and May 31, Ivanka Trump made between $1 million and $5 million from a trust valued at more than $50 million that now holds her fashion business’s collection of shoes, clothes, handbags and other goods.

The business earned her more than $5 million between January 2016 and March 2017, disclosures show.

...

Ivanka Trump also listed ­receiving $2.4 million in hotel-related revenue from the Trump International Hotel in Washington. She said she earned $787,500 from a publisher’s advance for her book “Women Who Work,” which debuted in May. And she reported $2.5 million in salary and severance from her “continued participation in employer-sponsored 401(k) plan” of Trump Payroll Corp., a side entity that handles Trump Organization wages.

For his part, Kushner earned millions from his family’s real estate over the past year, his filing shows. He pulled in between $1 million and $5 million between January 2016 and March 9 of this year from BFPS Ventures, a holding company valued at between $5 million and $25 million.

An earlier version of Kushner’s disclosure form described BFPS as a company focused on “real estate in New York.” However, public documents revealed, and Kushner’s legal team later confirmed, that it held a wide range of entities, including an Oklahoma oil and gas firm that has been sold.

In earlier correspondence with the ethics office, White House lawyers indicated Kushner wished to sell BFPS, adding that if he retained the company, it would “disqualify him from participating in particular matters that will have a direct and predictable effect on the technology and electronic sectors.”

But Kushner and his legal team reversed course on selling the entire company.

Instead, Kushner sold off a number of its assets, including an investment in an Argentine venture capital firm and a stake in FabFitFun, a beauty and wellness subscription company, the documents show.

He retained interests in more than two dozen properties in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Maryland.

The holding company now also includes a $5 million to $25 million stake that Kushner has in Cadre, an online real estate investment platform he co-founded with his brother, Joshua.

Last month, Cadre raised $65 million in venture capital from investors that included Goldman Sachs and Andreessen Horowitz. Cadre is now valued at an estimated $800 million.

As a senior adviser to Trump, Kushner has vast purview, including a role heading the newly formed Office of American Innovation, which collaborates with the private sector to improve government.

On his updated disclosure, Kushner said he “has been and will continue to be recused from particular matters in the broker-dealer, real estate, and online financial services sectors to the extent they would have a direct and predictable effect on Cadre.”

...

Among the assets Kushner sold were corporate bonds that he held in ExxonMobil, as well as public bonds from Israel and more than two dozen states and municipalities, including Boston, Westchester County, N.Y., and the Maryland Department of Transportation.

Kushner did not report in his disclosure a $285 million loan that his company received from Deutsche Bank one month before the election. Kushner signed as a guarantor of that loan under certain circumstances, such as fraud or misapplication of funds.

Kushner’s lawyer, Blake Roberts, has said that government rules do not require the disclosure of such loans because he doesn’t have a “present obligation to repay” it.

A Kushner representative said Friday that the OGE did not indicate that the loan had to be reported.

The Deutsche Bank loan resulted from the refinancing of four retail floors of the former New York Times headquarters at 229 43rd Street in New York.

Oops, I forgot that I have an art collection worth freaking 25 million dollars. You couldn't make this shit up.

[fraurosena]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"In revised filing, Kushner reveals dozens of previously undisclosed assets"

  Hide contents

Jared Kushner failed to disclose dozens of financial holdings that he was required to declare when he joined the White House as an adviser to President Trump, his father-in-law, according to a ­revised form released Friday.

A separate document released Friday also showed that Kushner’s wife, presidential daughter Ivanka Trump, had been paid as much as $5 million from her outside businesses over an 84-day span this spring around the time she entered the White House as a senior adviser and pledged to distance herself from her private holdings.

Kushner’s new disclosure, released by the White House, detailed more than 70 assets that his attorneys said he had inadvertently left out of earlier filings. The new document comes as the presidential aide faces increasing scrutiny as part of investigations into alleged Russian influence in the 2016 campaign.

In recent months, Kushner also has updated a national security questionnaire in which he had failed to disclose more than 100 calls or meetings with representatives from foreign countries — and he is scheduled to appear Monday at a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The new filing reveals Kushner’s past and current investments in an array of entities, including a real estate trading platform now valued at $800 million in which he continues to hold a large stake. He and his wife also disclosed that their contemporary art collection is valued at between $5 million and $25 million.

Kushner’s financial disclosure has been updated 39 times since his first filing in March.

Frequent revisions are not unusual for appointees with many holdings.

Their attorney, Jamie Gorelick, said in a statement that Kushner and Ivanka Trump “followed each of the required steps in their transition from private citizens to federal officials.”

“The Office of Government Ethics has certified Jared’s financial disclosure, reflecting its determination that his approach complies with federal ethics laws,” Gorelick said. He added that Ivanka Trump’s financial disclosure, which was filed in June, is still being reviewed by the agency.

The filings underscore the enormous wealth of the young couple, who stepped down from day-to-day management of their companies before assuming their public posts.

Kushner resigned from 266 corporate positions, and Trump stepped down from 292 positions, the documents show.

But they still control assets worth at least $139 million, along with another $66 million, at minimum, of assets that are tied to Trump’s stakes in her fashion brand, the Trump hotel in Washington and other real estate projects, according to the filings.

And they both continue to draw large sums from outside interests: The couple has jointly made at least $19 million in income from business ventures and listed more than $80 million in real estate and other revenues since the start of 2016, the documents show.

Trump gave up her right to performance-linked payments from three Trump real estate companies and instead receives fixed payments totaling $1.5 million a year. But she continues to reap a share of the profits from her fashion brand, where executives said sales climbed more than 20 percent last year and continue to rise this year.

Ivanka Trump no longer directly oversees the company, which which has come under criticism from labor advocates for its lack of oversight of its operations overseas, but she has retained ownership of her brand and is benefiting from its revenues.

Between March 9 and May 31, Ivanka Trump made between $1 million and $5 million from a trust valued at more than $50 million that now holds her fashion business’s collection of shoes, clothes, handbags and other goods.

The business earned her more than $5 million between January 2016 and March 2017, disclosures show.

...

Ivanka Trump also listed ­receiving $2.4 million in hotel-related revenue from the Trump International Hotel in Washington. She said she earned $787,500 from a publisher’s advance for her book “Women Who Work,” which debuted in May. And she reported $2.5 million in salary and severance from her “continued participation in employer-sponsored 401(k) plan” of Trump Payroll Corp., a side entity that handles Trump Organization wages.

For his part, Kushner earned millions from his family’s real estate over the past year, his filing shows. He pulled in between $1 million and $5 million between January 2016 and March 9 of this year from BFPS Ventures, a holding company valued at between $5 million and $25 million.

An earlier version of Kushner’s disclosure form described BFPS as a company focused on “real estate in New York.” However, public documents revealed, and Kushner’s legal team later confirmed, that it held a wide range of entities, including an Oklahoma oil and gas firm that has been sold.

In earlier correspondence with the ethics office, White House lawyers indicated Kushner wished to sell BFPS, adding that if he retained the company, it would “disqualify him from participating in particular matters that will have a direct and predictable effect on the technology and electronic sectors.”

But Kushner and his legal team reversed course on selling the entire company.

Instead, Kushner sold off a number of its assets, including an investment in an Argentine venture capital firm and a stake in FabFitFun, a beauty and wellness subscription company, the documents show.

He retained interests in more than two dozen properties in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Maryland.

The holding company now also includes a $5 million to $25 million stake that Kushner has in Cadre, an online real estate investment platform he co-founded with his brother, Joshua.

Last month, Cadre raised $65 million in venture capital from investors that included Goldman Sachs and Andreessen Horowitz. Cadre is now valued at an estimated $800 million.

As a senior adviser to Trump, Kushner has vast purview, including a role heading the newly formed Office of American Innovation, which collaborates with the private sector to improve government.

On his updated disclosure, Kushner said he “has been and will continue to be recused from particular matters in the broker-dealer, real estate, and online financial services sectors to the extent they would have a direct and predictable effect on Cadre.”

...

Among the assets Kushner sold were corporate bonds that he held in ExxonMobil, as well as public bonds from Israel and more than two dozen states and municipalities, including Boston, Westchester County, N.Y., and the Maryland Department of Transportation.

Kushner did not report in his disclosure a $285 million loan that his company received from Deutsche Bank one month before the election. Kushner signed as a guarantor of that loan under certain circumstances, such as fraud or misapplication of funds.

Kushner’s lawyer, Blake Roberts, has said that government rules do not require the disclosure of such loans because he doesn’t have a “present obligation to repay” it.

A Kushner representative said Friday that the OGE did not indicate that the loan had to be reported.

The Deutsche Bank loan resulted from the refinancing of four retail floors of the former New York Times headquarters at 229 43rd Street in New York.

Oops, I forgot that I have an art collection worth freaking 25 million dollars. You couldn't make this shit up.

That Deutsche Bank loan is fishy as fuck. The timing is especially noteworthy. Was it a Russian payoff in disguise? I wouldn't be surprised.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Jared Kushner, the Prince of Having It Both Ways"

Spoiler

On Monday, Jared Kushner is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but not so that we can listen. Not so that we can watch. It’s a closed-door affair, meaning that unlike Jeff Sessions, Kushner gets to dance in the dark.

How fitting. We always see his fingerprints but never hear his voice. He throws his weight around, then floats above it all. No wonder the president’s lawyers and various White House aides and advisers are fed up with him. He’s there but not there: a meddlesome ghost. A puff of smoke.

He got the emails about emissaries of a foreign adversary bearing dirt, but — what do you know? — read right over the subject line that said “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential.” No flashing lights in those proper nouns. No blaring sirens in those particular adjectives.

He attended the Trump Tower meeting, but stayed for only 10 minutes, a grace period that apparently doesn’t count. I guess it’s like canceling the on-demand movie rental shortly after the opening credits roll. No fee. No foul.

He failed to inform the F.B.I. about dozens of meetings with foreign officials during the campaign and the transition, but that was ostensibly a harmless oops. Someone prematurely hit “send.” Happens with Amazon orders. Can happen just as easily with an application for the highest level of security clearance.

And so what if he had to update that form multiple times? He’s new to all of this government gobbledygook. Not so new that he can’t reinvent the government, broker peace in the Middle East, spearhead our negotiations with countries elsewhere in the world, make headway against the opioid epidemic, reform the criminal justice system and still carve out time to tackle the slopes of Aspen with Ivanka and the kids. But paperwork? Be reasonable. He’s Superman. He’s not Ant-Man, the Green Hornet and the Green Lantern, too.

Too bad, because he’s in way over his faintly tousled hair, and that becomes clearer and clearer as the probes into the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia intensify.

His actions are under scrutiny. Why was he trying to set up a private back channel for communications with Russia? Did he furnish Russian players with the fruits of the campaign data operation that he supervised? Have his business interests profited from his proximity to the president? CNN reported on Friday that Chinese-language promotions for a New Jersey real estate development by Kushner Companies specifically mention that “the celebrity of the family is 30-something ‘Mr. Perfect’ Jared Kushner.”

Mr. Perfect indeed. Perfectly opportunistic. Perfectly armored in the rosiest self-regard. And perfectly reflective of his father-in-law in those ways and a few others.

He and the president once ran family businesses and now run the White House like one, with a narrowly drawn circle of trust and a suspiciousness of — and chilliness toward — those outside it. Note that Sean Spicer’s resignation came little more than a week after reports that Kushner was in a lather about press aides not devising more forceful and creative ways to answer negative coverage of the Russian meeting. And rest assured that Spicer’s departure won’t be the last.

Kushner and the president blithely straddle irreconcilable contradictions to get what they want. But in Kushner’s case — in Ivanka Trump’s, too — that has been an especially perverse spectacle. He and she are the prince and princess of having it both ways.

They expect our gratitude for their supposed (and only occasionally successful) efforts to tame Trump. But they’re also the ones who worked so mightily to put him in a position where, untamed, he can do such damage. It’s as if they deliberately shattered a glass, grabbed a broom and then solicited applause for their sweeping.

They cover for the president still. Smack in the middle of his cockamamie interview with The Times last week, Ivanka dropped by the Oval Office so that her daughter, Arabella, could give Grandpa a kiss. How precious. How humanizing. How entirely choreographed.

Grandpa spent the duration of his campaign mocking the establishment swells who migrate to enclaves like Davos, Switzerland, and Sun Valley, Idaho, for high-altitude, highfalutin conferences on the conundrums of modern life. That didn’t stop Kusher and Ivanka from joining those very swells in Sun Valley a week and a half ago for precisely such a symposium-on-the-slopes.

I’m told that their presence had a dampening effect on formal panels and informal conversations — how do you take issue with Trump when there’s family listening in? — and that a few glares came their way. I wonder if they even noticed.

They’re outsiders when that’s politically advantageous, insiders as soon as the canapés come around. Not long before Sun Valley they swanned up to the Hamptons for a party at the home of the Washington Post pooh-bah Lally Weymouth. There, in one of the global elite’s premier beachheads, they chatted radiantly with Democrats, whom Trump demonizes, and members of the news media, which Trump has cast as an enemy of the American people.

It’s an elaborate moral jujitsu they perform. There’s one constant — their self-advancement and self-preservation — but Kushner may be overplaying his hand.

His counsel to Trump has been flawed, to say the least. He reportedly lobbied for the firing of James Comey, which didn’t turn out so well. Maybe the hiring of Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House communications director — a move blessed by Kushner, over the objections of Reince Priebus, the chief of staff — will prove wiser. I have my doubts.

Cast as one of the president’s most dependable assets, Kushner could in fact be a significant liability, someone whose escapades — by turns grabby and cavalier — give investigators and detractors a whole extra sandbox of improprieties to rummage through.

I hear that he feels persecuted. Wronged. In that regard, too, he’s like his father-in-law, though Trump wears his self-pity, fury and ruthlessness right out front, for the whole world to see. Kushner puts a pale mask of calm and courteousness over his.

Maybe the senators who question him on Monday will pry it off. Maybe they’ll actually bring some color to his face. We won’t be able to witness what happens. But we’ll find out.

Aw, poor Jared feels persecuted. With any luck, he'll soon be prosecuted.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Jared Kushner’s Got Too Many Secrets to Keep Ours"

Spoiler

For all that we don’t know about President Trump’s dealings with Russia, one thing should now be clear: Jared Kushner should not be working in the White House, and he should not have a security clearance.

True, no proof has been presented that Kushner broke the law or plotted with Russia to interfere in the U.S. election. But he’s under investigation, and a series of revelations have bolstered suspicions — and credible doubts mean that he must be viewed as a security risk.

Here’s the bottom line: Kushner attended a meeting in June 2016 whose stated purpose was to advance a Kremlin initiative to interfere in the U.S. election; he failed to disclose the meeting on government forms (a felony if intentional); he was apparently complicit in a cover-up in which the Trump team denied at least 20 times that there had been any contacts with Russians to influence the election; and he also sought to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin during the presidential transition.

Until the situation is clarified, such a person simply should not work in the White House and have access to America’s most important secrets.

Kushner is set to be interviewed Monday in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee, his first meeting with congressional investigators. I hope they grill him in particular about the attempt to set up a secret communications channel and whether it involved mobile Russian scrambling devices.

Similar issues arise with Ivanka Trump. The SF-86 form to get a national security clearance requires inclusion of a spouse’s foreign contacts, so the question arises: Did Ivanka Trump list the Russians whom Kushner spoke with? If they were intentionally omitted, then that, too, is a felony.

Look, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump may well be innocent of wrongdoing, and in general I agree with them much more than I do with, say, Steve Bannon. I suspect that the couple are a moderating influence on the administration, and I believe that some of the derision toward Ivanka has a sexist taint that would arouse more outrage if a liberal were the target.

All that acknowledged, it’s still untenable for someone to remain as a senior White House official with continued access to secrets while under federal investigation for possible ties to the Kremlin.

The Washington Post reported in May that Kushner is a focus of a federal inquiry, and McClatchy has reported that investigators are looking into whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation, which Kushner oversaw, colluded with Russians on Moscow’s efforts to spread fake news about Hillary Clinton. The cloud is so great that even some Republicans are calling for Kushner to be ousted from the White House.

“It would be in the president’s best interest if he removed all of his children from the White House, not only Donald Trump but also Ivanka and Jared Kushner,” Representative Bill Flores, a Texas Republican, told a television interviewer.

Increasingly, the national security world fears that there is something substantive to the suspicions about the president and Russia. Otherwise, nothing makes sense.

Why has Trump persistently stood with Vladimir Putin rather than with allies like Germany or Britain? Why did Trump make a beeline for Putin at the G-20 dinner, without an aide, as opposed to chat with Angela Merkel or Theresa May? Why do so many Trump team members have ties to Russia? Why did Trump choose a campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who had been as much as $17 million in debt to pro-Russian interests and was vulnerable to Moscow pressure?

Why the unending pattern of secrecy and duplicity about Russia contacts?

Trump’s defensiveness on Russian ties is creepy. Why did he take the political risk of firing Jim Comey? Why is he so furious at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself? Why does he apparently contemplate the extreme step of firing Bob Mueller during his investigation into the Russia ties?

If the Trump team is innocent and expects exoneration, why would it work so hard on a secret effort aimed at discrediting Mueller, as The Times reported? Why would Trump be exploring pardons for aides, family members and himself, as The Washington Post reported?

One thing you learn as a journalist is that when an official makes increasingly vehement protestations of innocence, you’re probably getting warm. So, listening to the protests from Trump, I’d say that Mueller is on to something.

What’s particularly debilitating is the way the news and scandals keep dribbling out, making a mockery of White House denials and the president’s credibility. If Trump has nothing to hide, he should stop trying to hide stuff.

No one should find any satisfaction in Trump’s difficulties, for this credibility crisis diminishes not just his own influence but also American soft power around the world. This isn’t a soap opera but a calamity for our country, affecting how others see us.

At least one leader of an American ally tells me that his government suspects that there was collusion with Moscow. I sympathize with our counterintelligence officials, who chase low-level leakers and spies even as they undoubtedly worry that their commander in chief may be subject to Kremlin leverage or blackmail.

There’s no good way to manage a president who is a potential security risk (other than the standard protocol that he not meet Russians without another U.S. official present, and Trump escaped that constraint in Hamburg, Germany). But at least we can keep his son-in-law, while under investigation for possible felonies and collusion with Russia, from serving as a top White House official.

It’s time for Jared Kushner to find another job.

Hmm, I hear the prison laundry is hiring...

[onekidanddone]

On 7/21/2017 at 8:44 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Oops, I forgot that I have an art collection worth freaking 25 million dollars. You couldn't make this shit up.

Oh come on @GreyhoundFan haven't you even forgotten you had 25 million dollars in your back pocket when you ran your jeans through the wash? 

[GreyhoundFan]

39 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Oh come on @GreyhoundFan haven't you even forgotten you had 25 million dollars in your back pocket when you ran your jeans through the wash? 

Nah, my butt is too big, I can only fit $5 million in the pockets. 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Nah, my butt is too big, I can only fit $5 million in the pockets. 

So I'm thinking that 5 million dollar bill I got in change at the Giant yesterday was fake?

[Howl]

Saw a People magazine cover while waiting in line at the grocery store.  Photos of Trump kids on the cover. They were ripping apart the Trump kids, saying they were taught to win at any cost and the subtext is they are dishonest.  People. Magazine. 

[onekidanddone]

9 hours ago, Howl said:

Saw a People magazine cover while waiting in line at the grocery store.  Photos of Trump kids on the cover. They were ripping apart the Trump kids, saying they were taught to win at any cost and the subtext is they are dishonest.  People. Magazine. 

Tumps and Duggars.  Good match.

[GrumpyGran]

13 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Jared Kushner’s Got Too Many Secrets to Keep Ours"

  Reveal hidden contents

For all that we don’t know about President Trump’s dealings with Russia, one thing should now be clear: Jared Kushner should not be working in the White House, and he should not have a security clearance.

True, no proof has been presented that Kushner broke the law or plotted with Russia to interfere in the U.S. election. But he’s under investigation, and a series of revelations have bolstered suspicions — and credible doubts mean that he must be viewed as a security risk.

Here’s the bottom line: Kushner attended a meeting in June 2016 whose stated purpose was to advance a Kremlin initiative to interfere in the U.S. election; he failed to disclose the meeting on government forms (a felony if intentional); he was apparently complicit in a cover-up in which the Trump team denied at least 20 times that there had been any contacts with Russians to influence the election; and he also sought to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin during the presidential transition.

Until the situation is clarified, such a person simply should not work in the White House and have access to America’s most important secrets.

Kushner is set to be interviewed Monday in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee, his first meeting with congressional investigators. I hope they grill him in particular about the attempt to set up a secret communications channel and whether it involved mobile Russian scrambling devices.

Similar issues arise with Ivanka Trump. The SF-86 form to get a national security clearance requires inclusion of a spouse’s foreign contacts, so the question arises: Did Ivanka Trump list the Russians whom Kushner spoke with? If they were intentionally omitted, then that, too, is a felony.

Look, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump may well be innocent of wrongdoing, and in general I agree with them much more than I do with, say, Steve Bannon. I suspect that the couple are a moderating influence on the administration, and I believe that some of the derision toward Ivanka has a sexist taint that would arouse more outrage if a liberal were the target.

All that acknowledged, it’s still untenable for someone to remain as a senior White House official with continued access to secrets while under federal investigation for possible ties to the Kremlin.

The Washington Post reported in May that Kushner is a focus of a federal inquiry, and McClatchy has reported that investigators are looking into whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation, which Kushner oversaw, colluded with Russians on Moscow’s efforts to spread fake news about Hillary Clinton. The cloud is so great that even some Republicans are calling for Kushner to be ousted from the White House.

“It would be in the president’s best interest if he removed all of his children from the White House, not only Donald Trump but also Ivanka and Jared Kushner,” Representative Bill Flores, a Texas Republican, told a television interviewer.

Increasingly, the national security world fears that there is something substantive to the suspicions about the president and Russia. Otherwise, nothing makes sense.

Why has Trump persistently stood with Vladimir Putin rather than with allies like Germany or Britain? Why did Trump make a beeline for Putin at the G-20 dinner, without an aide, as opposed to chat with Angela Merkel or Theresa May? Why do so many Trump team members have ties to Russia? Why did Trump choose a campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who had been as much as $17 million in debt to pro-Russian interests and was vulnerable to Moscow pressure?

Why the unending pattern of secrecy and duplicity about Russia contacts?

Trump’s defensiveness on Russian ties is creepy. Why did he take the political risk of firing Jim Comey? Why is he so furious at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself? Why does he apparently contemplate the extreme step of firing Bob Mueller during his investigation into the Russia ties?

If the Trump team is innocent and expects exoneration, why would it work so hard on a secret effort aimed at discrediting Mueller, as The Times reported? Why would Trump be exploring pardons for aides, family members and himself, as The Washington Post reported?

One thing you learn as a journalist is that when an official makes increasingly vehement protestations of innocence, you’re probably getting warm. So, listening to the protests from Trump, I’d say that Mueller is on to something.

What’s particularly debilitating is the way the news and scandals keep dribbling out, making a mockery of White House denials and the president’s credibility. If Trump has nothing to hide, he should stop trying to hide stuff.

No one should find any satisfaction in Trump’s difficulties, for this credibility crisis diminishes not just his own influence but also American soft power around the world. This isn’t a soap opera but a calamity for our country, affecting how others see us.

At least one leader of an American ally tells me that his government suspects that there was collusion with Moscow. I sympathize with our counterintelligence officials, who chase low-level leakers and spies even as they undoubtedly worry that their commander in chief may be subject to Kremlin leverage or blackmail.

There’s no good way to manage a president who is a potential security risk (other than the standard protocol that he not meet Russians without another U.S. official present, and Trump escaped that constraint in Hamburg, Germany). But at least we can keep his son-in-law, while under investigation for possible felonies and collusion with Russia, from serving as a top White House official.

It’s time for Jared Kushner to find another job.

Hmm, I hear the prison laundry is hiring...

He'd turn the laundry into either a Ponzi scheme or a smuggling operation. Habits die hard.

[fraurosena]

Although he's talking* behind closed doors, he did give out a statement about what is his going to say.

Here’s Jared Kushner’s Full Statement to Congress

Spoiler

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, is expected to sit down Monday with staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Kushner, who will not be under oath, is expected to be questioned about his meetings with Russian officials during last year's presidential campaign and the transition after the election. Kushner's lawyer has said his client will fully cooperate.

One of the most pressing matters is expected to be Kushner's attendance at a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower involving Donald Trump Jr., then-campaign manager Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, among others.

Early Monday, Kushner released the following statement detailing his encounters with Russian officials and his role in the campaign:

I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.

I am not a person who has sought the spotlight. First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception. Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.

My Role in the Trump for President Campaign

Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies. My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President.

However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility. Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve. I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.

All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action. I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign’s ultimate success.

Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted. I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.

It is also important to note that a campaign’s success starts with its message and its messenger. Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly. The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency; he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election. He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.

Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons

When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign. My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries. These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.

To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States. While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail.

To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate. In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign. I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.

With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any. The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. in April 2016. This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech.

Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution. I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order. After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together. Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event.

He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. With all the ambassadors, including Mr. Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump’s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America’s foreign policy.

The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election. Each exchange lasted less than a minute; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.

Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016. While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador. We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.

A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls. I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.

In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador. When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real. To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr. Simes, “What is the name of the Russian ambassador?”

Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak. The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.

The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information. In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other’s meetings when requested.

He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as "Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner." No one else was mentioned.

I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.

Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote "Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting."

I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.

Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.

There was one more possible contact that I will note. On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname "Guccifer400." This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information. I brought the email to the attention of a U.S. Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought. He advised me to ignore it and not to reply — which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.

To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.

Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons

The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign. Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad. Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration.

During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries. Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.

On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador. As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier.

In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks — on December 1. The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes. Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended.

During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations. Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President.

The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.

The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his "generals." He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.

He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.

The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration. Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a "secret back channel." I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period. We did not discuss sanctions.

Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined. They then asked if I could meet on December 6; I declined again. They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet. I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition. He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed. He did so on December 12.

My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together.

I agreed to meet Mr. Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr. Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days. I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.

The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introduced himself and gave me two gifts -- one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office).

After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.

As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met. There were no specific policies discussed. We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.

At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings. I did not know or have any contact with Mr. Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.

To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.

Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form

There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.

Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.

In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form.

They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.

At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known). Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.

That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form. The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.

The supplement disclosed that I had "numerous contacts with foreign officials" and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.

It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians. That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted. The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form. These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.

Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background. In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited. The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be "update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]" as part of the security clearance process.

A good example is the June 9 meeting. For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86.

When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement.

I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form. This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.

* * * *

As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies. I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide.

As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia. I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall. The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.

It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense. I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities. I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.

I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.

*(he's not going to be under oath, so it's not a testimony)

The statement is loooooong. I have a lot of comments, that I'm adding to short quotes from the statement to be as brief as possible. Nevertheless, it's turned out to be a very long post. My apologies. 

Quote

All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action. I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign’s ultimate success.

This whole statement is just a simple standard 'how to' when you're inexperienced. It means nothing.
And about finding the right people to help you? Well, you didn't find them now, did you? Because if you had, you wouldn't be in this predicament. Or did you mean the right Russian person to help you collude?

Quote

Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust [...]

Wut? A nimble culture? This is just an absurd use of an adjective to make you sound intellectual.

Quote

It is also important to note that a campaign’s success starts with its message and its messenger. Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly. The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency; he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election. He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.

Sorry, this is just campaign rhetoric, and not important at all as it has ab-so-lute-ly nothing to do with why you have been asked for clarification of your dubious actions by Congress.

One thing is true though, you guys won by using modern technology: Russian bots did most of the work for you.

Quote

To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, [...]

Hmm. I wonder, will Congress (or Mueller) ask Kissinger about his contacts with Jared, and what they entailed?

Quote

Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016. While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador. We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.

A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls. I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.

Do you really think we have no knowledge of the existence of burner phones? Why would you think that your official  records are an accurate reflection of your means of contacting anyone? 

Quote

He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as "Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner." No one else was mentioned. [...]

I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.

Um, you do know that Junior made those emails public? And that everybody knows that the header for them clearly said 'Russia'? So you had to have known that this was more than just a meeting with your BIL. That you named it otherwise in your calender does not change that fact.

Quote

During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries. Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.

My, my, what a weird memory you have. You don't remember contacts and meetings with Russians during the campaign but you somehow do recall having over fifty contacts with people from fifteen countries on election night or shortly thereafter? While things were so very hectic? Strange...

Quote

The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.

This statement is strong evidence of either your ineptitude, or your disengenuousness. I'm more inclined to believe the latter. Furthermore, your argument here seems to be "I'm sorry but I had no knowledge." But having no knowledge doesn't mean you cannot (legally) be held responsible for your actions.

Quote

The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his "generals." He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.

He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.

This is a cute attempt at dismissing the outrageousness of what happened. It does not matter in the slightest who first asked for a secure communications channel and for what. The very fact that a secure communications channel was discussed at all  - and then not reported - is what is the true issue here.

Quote

The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introduced himself and gave me two gifts [...]

After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.

Sooooo... you didn't want to meet him, sent your assistant when they kept pushing, then because they were so insistent you rescheduled your calender especially to meet him the very next day, and the only thing he said was that he knew Putin personally and he wanted better relations? Um, yah, really believable Jarod, really believable. NOT.

Quote

There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.

You go on to explain what happened. I can believe that the first itteration of the SF-86 was mistakenly sent. Your explanation about that sounds quite plausible. However, there is no explanation for all the ommissions on the next itteration, or the next after that, other than that you were trying to hide a lot of contacts, and only 'remembered' them after the press found out about them and made them public. Ah, that wonky memory of yours...

Quote

It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense. I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities. I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.

I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.

Well, you may hope that this puts matters to rest. I can assure you that they most certainly are not. The very fact that you are only speaking to Congress behind closed doors, and aren't doing so under oath, puts absolutely no value (legal or otherwise) on the veracity of what you say. Maybe the Repugliklans will put on a show and state they believe you and try to put this to rest, but I don't think many others will.

Sorry, not sorry.

[47of74]

Ivanka stepped in it by misquoting Einstein

Quote

First daughter Ivanka Trump has been mocked on social media after a tweet she wrote four years ago misquoting Albert Einstein resurfaced over the weekend. 

The tweet, written in June 2013, attributed the quote “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” to the famed physicist. 

The only problem? Einstein never actually said that.

Twitter users picked up on the misquote, with some poking fun at the irony of such a mistake, while others questioned whether Ms Trump might actually be mocking the notion of changing facts herself. 

Here's the tweet...

Maybe that would work in Faux Spews Bizzaro world, but here in the real world it's the other way around.

[GreyhoundFan]

@47of74 -- her slogan should be, "If the facts don't fit the theory, make up more 'facts' for Faux to broadcast."

[AmazonGrace]

So about that money laundering case that Preet Bhahara was prosecuting and got settled suddenly and Natalia Veselnitskaya was the lawyer in? 

Jared Kushner did business with the Russian oligarch involved in the case. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/24/jared-kushner-new-york-russia-money-laundering

Quote

 

Jared Kushner sealed real estate deal with oligarch's firm cited in money-laundering case

Donald Trump’s son-in-law bought part of old New York Times building from Soviet-born tycoon, Guardian investigation into Russian money in NYC property market finds

Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump, who acts as his senior White House adviser, secured a multimillion-dollar Manhattan real estate deal with a Soviet-born oligarch whose company was cited in a major New York money laundering case now being investigated by members of Congress.

A Guardian investigation has established a series of overlapping ties and relationships involving alleged Russian money laundering, New York real estate deals and members of Trump’s inner circle. They include a 2015 sale of part of the old New York Times building in Manhattan involving Kushner and a billionaire real estate tycoon and diamond mogul, Lev Leviev.

 

Spoiler

 

The ties between Trump family real estate deals and Russian money interests are attracting growing interest from the justice department’s special counsel, Robert Mueller, as he seeks to determine whether the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia to distort the outcome of the 2016 race. Mueller has reportedly expanded his inquiry to look at real estate deals involving the Trump Organization, as well as Kushner’s financing.

Kushner will go before the US Senate intelligence committee on Monday in a closed session of the panel’s inquiry into Russian interference in the election in what could be a pivotal hearing into the affair.

Leviev, a global tycoon known as the “king of diamonds”, was a business partner of the Russian-owned company Prevezon Holdings that was at the center of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit launched in New York. Under the leadership of US attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump in March, prosecutors pursued Prevezon for allegedly attempting to use Manhattan real estate deals to launder money stolen from the Russian treasury.

The scam had been uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant who died in 2009 in a Moscow jail in suspicious circumstances. US sanctions against Russia imposed after Magnitsky’s death were a central topic of conversation at the notorious Trump Tower meeting last June between Kushner, Donald Trump Jr, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin.

Donald Jr and Manafort have been called to testify before the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, at which they are certain to face questions about the Trump Tower encounter.

Two days before it was due to open in court in May, the Prevezon case was settledfor $6m with no admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. But since details of the Trump Tower meeting emerged, the abrupt settlement of the Prevezon case has come under renewed scrutiny from congressional investigators.

Four Russians attended the meeting, led by Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer with known Kremlin connections who acted as legal counsel for Prevezon in the money laundering case and who called the $6m settlement so slight that “it seemed almost an apology from the government”. Sixteen Democratic members of the House judiciary committee have now written to the justice department in light of the Trump Tower meeting demanding to know whether there was any interference behind the decision to avoid trial.

 

Constitutional experts are also demanding an official inquiry. “We need a full accounting by Trump’s justice department of the unexplained and frankly outrageous settlement that is likely to be just the tip of a vast financial iceberg,” said Laurence Tribe, Harvard University professor of constitutional law.

Separately, the focus of investigators on Trump family finances stem from the vast flow of Russian wealth that has been poured into New York real estate in recent years. As Donald TrumpJr put it in 2008, referring to the Trump Organization: “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Among the overlapping connections is the 2015 deal in which Kushner paid $295m to acquire several floors of the old New York Times building at 43rd street in Manhattan from the US branch of Leviev’s company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and its partner Five Mile Capital. The sale has been identified as of possible interest to the Mueller investigation as Kushner later went on to borrow $285m in refinancing from Deutsche Bank, the German financial house that itself has been embroiled in Russian money laundering scandals and whose loans to Trump are coming under intensifying scrutiny.

Court documents and company records show that AFI was cited in the Prevezon case as a business partner of the defendants. In 2008, Prevezon entered a partnership with AFI in which Prevezon bought for €3m, a 30% stake in four AFI subsidiaries in the Netherlands. Five years later, AFI tried to return the money to the Russian-owned company, but it was intercepted and frozen by Dutch authorities at the request of the US government as part of the Prevezon money-laundering investigation.

In Manhattan, Leviev’s firm also sold condominiums to Prevezon Holdings from one of its landmark developments at 20 Pine Street, just a few blocks from Wall Street.

Real estate brochures describe the lavish interior decor of the condominiums, replete with bathrooms bedecked in stone and exotic woods, and boasting “the ultimate in pampering; a sybaritic recessed rain shower”. The 20 Pine Streetapartments that Leviev sold to Prevezon were later frozen by US prosecutors seeking to block the flow of what they alleged to be money stolen from the Russian treasury and laundered through New York real estate.

Prevezon’s 20 Pine Street apartments and €3m in assets were all released as part of the settlement in May.

 

The Guardian contacted both Kushner and Leviev for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

The pursuit of Prevezon Holdings for alleged money laundering took on enormous political significance as it unfolded. For the prosecutors, it was a test case over suspicious Russian money flows designed to show the US was serious about going after money launderers. For the Russians, it was an opportunity to push back against stringent US sanctions that had long infuriated the Kremlin.

In court documents, US prosecutors accused Prevezon and its sole shareholder, Denis Katsyv, of participating in the laundering of proceeds of the vast tax fraud that stole $230m from the Russian treasury and moved it out of the country in chunks. Prevezon was alleged to have received some of the fraudulent spoils through a network of shell companies, hiding the money by investing in Manhattan real estate including the Leviev condominiums in 20 Pine Street.

Prevezon and Katsyv have consistently denied any involvement in money laundering and have dismissed the lawsuit as “ill-conceived”. In a statement released at the time of the settlement, they said they had “no involvement in or knowledge of any fraudulent activities”.

Magnitsky discovered the massive tax fraud, said to be one of the largest in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, in 2007. After he blew the whistle on the scam, he was arrested by the same officials whom he had accused of covering up the racket and imprisoned, dying in jail having been denied medical treatment.

Magnitsky’s death led to a political backlash in the US that in turn spawned tough sanctions on Russia, known as the Magnitsky Act. Russian individuals associated with the lawyer’s demise and other human rights abuses were banned entry to the US.

Veselnitskaya not only acted as Prevezon’s Russian counsel in the money-laundering case, she also was a leading lobbyist against the Magnitsky sanctions. She raised the subject prominently at the meeting in Trump Tower with Don Jr and Kushner, though according to Veselnitskaya the president’s son-in-law left after 10 minutes.

By the time of the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya was already personally acquainted with Russia’s powerful prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika, and her lobbying against the Magnitsky sanctions had drawn significant attention in government circles.

“Natalia’s main role was coordinating, including regular coordination with Chaika, whom she knew personally,” said a source acquainted with the Prevezon case.

Veselnitskaya told the Guardian: “My meeting with Trump’s son was a private meeting; nobody in the government had anything to do with it.” She declined to answer a follow-up question about whether and how she knew Chaika.

Jamison Firestone, the founder of the Russian law firm that employed Magnitsky at the time that he exposed the fraud, said that Veselnitskaya clearly intended to use the Trump Tower meeting to lobby against the Magnitsky sanctions. “They really made it a state priority to get rid of these sanctions,” he said.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Jared Kushner just threw Donald Trump Jr. under the bus. Bigly."

Spoiler

Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee this morning, and what is striking about his extensive opening statement is the degree to which it seeks to insulate Kushner himself from any culpability or responsibility for the problematic known facts about the Russia affair — particularly the known facts that concern Donald Trump Jr.

Kushner’s statement takes exceptional care to separate him, with scalpel-like precision, from the now-notorious meeting that Trump Jr. arranged with a Russian lawyer — a meeting that Trump Jr. had been informed would furnish the Trump campaign with information about Hillary Clinton supplied by the Russian government. Here is what Kushner’s statement says about the meeting (emphasis added):

In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other’s meetings when requested. He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as “Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner.” No one else was mentioned.

I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote “Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.”

I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.

It’s not entirely clear that the “long back and forth” that Kushner claims he “did not read at the time” is the email chain that Trump Jr. released, under duress, which demonstrated that the meeting was taken with the express purpose of getting information advertised as coming from the Russian government. But it seems clear that this is what he is referring to. Note that Kushner does not say one way or the other whether he had been sent this email chain before. What we do know, however, is that Kushner says he never read it. And if Kushner is to be believed, he agreed to, and showed up at, this meeting without having any idea why it was being held.

This, even though Trump Jr. was quite excited about what this meeting might yield (“I love it,” Trump Jr. exulted in the email chain), and even though Trump’s then-campaign chair Paul Manafort was also present. This was a meeting attended by Trump’s top brain trust, on the expectation that it would yield greatly damaging information about Trump’s opponent, just as the campaign was shifting into general election mode — but Kushner was unaware of its purpose.

Also note the exceptional care that went into Kushner’s characterization of the meeting. He claims he arrived just late enough to miss the incriminating part of the meeting. Trump Jr. admitted in his second statement that the Russian lawyer brought up the campaign (after an initial statement claiming the meeting was just about Russian adoptions):

After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.

Kushner’s statement does not deny outright either that the meeting did address the campaign or that any documents had been offered to the Trump camp, which the email chain appears to confirm. All it does is insulate Kushner from those facts.

It is certainly possible that Kushner’s account is accurate. But these things are now investigable: Efforts can be made to determine whether Kushner had been told of, or discussed, the purpose of the meeting beforehand, and to determine whether he arrived just late enough to miss the part of the meeting that concerned the campaign.

But whatever the truth turns out to be on those fronts, what Kushner’s statement does not do is contest any of the known facts about that meeting — known facts that are deeply problematic for Trump Jr. and even for Trump himself. The meeting, at a minimum, shows that Trump Jr. was eager to collude with the Russian government, which, he had been told, was trying to get his father elected president.  Kushner’s statement denies any collusion on his own part, and claims no awareness of any other collusion:

I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government.

Of course, what Trump Jr.’s email chain showed is that the campaign jumped at the chance to collude, even if it ended up not happening at that meeting. Recall that Trump Jr.’s original statement covered up the real reason for the meeting, and that President Trump himself reportedly signed off on that initial false statement, which means the president actively participated in an effort to mislead the country about his own campaign’s eagerness to collude with Russia to help him win. Kushner’s statement offers nothing to challenge these underlying facts. It just separates him from them.

...

It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is standing when this all finishes.

[AmazonGrace]