Kushner’s Conflicts Saga Getting Worse And Worse
March 2, 2018
Yesterday, we put out a release highlighting some of the many reasons why Jared Kushner should be fired from the White House from just this past week alone. But it looks like we hit send too soon. In the past 24 hours, even more stories have come out that continue to demonstrate the far-reaching implications of Kushner’s conflicts. It’s hard to see how he still has a job at the White House. If this was anyone other than the president’s son-in-law, he would’ve lost his job long ago.
Trump is frustrated with Kushner for being a liability because of his precarious finances, ongoing legal issues and being a threat to our national security – yet he still won’t fire him.
New York Times: “Yet Mr. Trump is also frustrated with Mr. Kushner, whom he now views as a liability because of his legal entanglements, the investigations of the Kushner family’s real estate company and the publicity over having his security clearance downgraded, according to two people familiar with his views. In private conversations, the president vacillates between sounding regretful that Mr. Kushner is taking arrows and annoyed that he is another problem to deal with. Privately, some aides have expressed frustration that Mr. Kushner and his wife, the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, have remained at the White House, despite Mr. Trump at times saying they never should have come to the White House and should leave. Yet aides also noted that Mr. Trump has told the couple that they should keep serving in their roles, even as he has privately asked Mr. Kelly for his help in moving them out.”
As a senior advisor to Trump’s transition team, Jared Kushner met with financiers from China and Russia and a Qatari investment company run by the country’s former prime minister – all while his company was facing $1.2 billion in debt.
Washington Post: “In December 2016, Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential transition, was busy helping shape the new administration. But Trump’s son-in-law also had another pressing concern: finding a wealthy investor to buy into a Manhattan commercial building owned by his family’s company that was facing down a $1.2 billion debt. Meetings that Kushner had that month with a Chinese insurance company and a Russian banker — as well as the company’s efforts to get funding from a Qatari source — are coming under new scrutiny after The Washington Post revealed that foreign government officials viewed him as a figure who might be manipulated due to the family company’s financial needs and his lack of experience. … Kushner, or representatives of his family firm, also met with a Qatari investment company, run by the country’s former prime minister and finance minister, Hamad Bin Jasim al-Thani, one of the world’s wealthiest men. Tom Barrack, a Trump friend who had suggested that Thani consider investing in the Kushner property, has said Charles Kushner was “crushed” when his son got the White House job because that prompted the Qataris to pull out.”
The SEC dropped an inquiry into a financial company, soon after they gave Kushner’s business a $180 million loan.
Associated Press: “The Securities and Exchange Commission late last year dropped its inquiry into a financial company that a month earlier had given White House adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate firm a $180 million loan.”
Kushner’s brazen conflicts of interest and omissions from his financial disclosures are “fatal for a public servant.”
Bloomberg Editorial: “His financial filings had to be amended 39 times in four months after he ‘inadvertently omitted’ millions of dollars in assets. He seems to have forgotten entirely about owning a real-estate startup with dubious ties. And so on. This combination of brazen conflicts and ethical elasticity is fatal for a public servant. It erodes trust and impedes public business. Foreign policy can't be conducted by someone who's negotiating real-estate deals on the side. Business leaders can't be welcomed into the White House to exchange loans for policy considerations. And routinely careless and evasive officials can't be entrusted with sensitive government business.”