Former first son-in-law Jared Kushner received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund — with expected annual management fees of $25 million — according to a new report, drawing comparisons to first son Hunter Biden’s overseas business ventures.
Kushner’s firm Affinity Partners made the deal shortly after President Donald Trump left office, despite a Saudi Public Investment Fund review panel’s concerns about “inexperience” and a due diligence review that was “unsatisfactory in all aspects,” according to minutes of a June meeting reported by the New York Times.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman leads the fund’s board, which overruled the skeptics. A letter written by fund staff to a board member who dissented cited “aims to form a strategic relationship with the Affinity Partners Fund and its founder, Jared Kushner” in going ahead with the deal, according to the report.
Kushner worked as a top Trump White House aide and built a relationship with the crown prince while in office — including while working on the Abraham Accords that led to four Arab states establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.
Trump is openly teasing a possible 2024 bid and Kushner’s arrangement sparked ethics concerns from some of the same experts who slammed Hunter Biden’s overseas ventures.
Any Trump supporter who is so concerned about Hunter Biden want to be consistent and condemn Kushner for what appears to be a fairly straightforward case of graft? This might be a good place to note that Biden has allowed the DOJ investigation into Hunter continue, even to the point that some are speculating an indictment may be forthcoming, while Trump fired multiple DOJ and FBI staff when they were investigating his activities.
Who knows if influence/favors were sold in either case. Is Kushner legitimately in the business of receiving large investments to manage? Because Hunter Biden surely wasn't qualified to sit on the board of Burisma. That might a difference worth considering.
Rez wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '22, 10:05
Who knows if influence/favors were sold in either case. Is Kushner legitimately in the business of receiving large investments to manage? Because Hunter Biden surely wasn't qualified to sit on the board of Burisma. That might a difference worth considering.
Well according to the Saudi Public Investment Fund review panel, they were concerned about Kushner's lack of experience and due diligence issues (see above) so I'm not sure there's much of a difference there.
One difference that might be worth considering is that Kushner was actually staff in the White House and was involved with crafting policy that related to the Saudi's, while Hunter was never a White House staffer or even a government employee. So arguably Kushner's situation is worse as he had a more direct influence on policy. But I agree in both cases it is a question of buying influence. In Hunter's case I think it was about buying an audience. In Kusher's case, I think he was the audience.
I think the bottom line for me is that these are cases of graft that should make us angry regardless of who is in office. We need to stop defending people just because they're our preferred political persuasion. Contrary to what some have said, an honest member of the opposite party is not as bad as a corrupt member of your own.
Rez wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '22, 10:05
Who knows if influence/favors were sold in either case. Is Kushner legitimately in the business of receiving large investments to manage? Because Hunter Biden surely wasn't qualified to sit on the board of Burisma. That might a difference worth considering.
One major difference is one included murder and one did not.
Rez wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '22, 10:05
Who knows if influence/favors were sold in either case. Is Kushner legitimately in the business of receiving large investments to manage? Because Hunter Biden surely wasn't qualified to sit on the board of Burisma. That might a difference worth considering.
Well according to the Saudi Public Investment Fund review panel, they were concerned about Kushner's lack of experience and due diligence issues (see above) so I'm not sure there's much of a difference there.
One difference that might be worth considering is that Kushner was actually staff in the White House and was involved with crafting policy that related to the Saudi's, while Hunter was never a White House staffer or even a government employee. So arguably Kushner's situation is worse as he had a more direct influence on policy. But I agree in both cases it is a question of buying influence. In Hunter's case I think it was about buying an audience. In Kusher's case, I think he was the audience.
I think the bottom line for me is that these are cases of graft that should make us angry regardless of who is in office. We need to stop defending people just because they're our preferred political persuasion. Contrary to what some have said, an honest member of the opposite party is not as bad as a corrupt member of your own.
