‘Clinton Cash’ Author Sounds The Alarm Over Jared Kushner’s Partnership With George Soros

Daily Caller ^ | 05/03/2017 | Peter Hasson

[Mount Athos]

The author of the best-selling book that revealed alleged pay-for-play schemes during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state is sounding the alarm about Jared Kushner’s ties to liberal bankroller George Soros and Goldman Sachs.

“Clinton Cash” author and Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer said in a radio interview that Kushner’s ties to Soros — who funds a network of left-wing activists — as well as his billion-dollar loans, both of which he failed to include in his financial disclosure forms, present a “massive, massive problem” for the White House. Schweizer called for an independent audit of Kushner’s finances, which he said likely contain similar bombshells.

Schweizer expressed similar concern over the opacity of Kushner’s political views — which the adviser has kept close to his vest — and said the president should let the public “lift the hood up from the car and see what kind of engine is underneath there — to see really what his views are, have him do some public interviews about what his positions are.”

“He is now the sort of go-between, between President Trump and people like Goldman Sachs and/or George Soros that might have business in the White House,” Schweizer said. “These are people he does business with, and has commingled assets with. The American people need to know, and for a campaign that I think ‘draining the swamp’ and transparency were such important issues, this circumstance I think demands that kind of response.”

“There needs to be somebody independently that goes in and looks through his assets to make sure that there aren’t other big conflicts that are undisclosed lurking,” he said. “The problem is, you really can’t have confidence in whoever prepared these forms for Jared Kushner because you’ve got these gaps. I would be surprised if there aren’t more of these kinds of mistakes or omissions, because it just seems to me this one is so big and so glaring, it’s hard for me to believe that it was just an oversight, and it’s hard for me to believe that this is the only one that exists.”

Kushner, who is married to President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, failed to disclose his business ties to George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Peter Thiel and other billionaires through his real estate start-up company, Cadre. Soros also reportedly opened up a $250 million line of credit to Kushner to help get Cadre off the ground.

While he may be business partners with Kushner, Soros is intensely opposed to his father-in-law, President Trump. Soros spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Trump in last year’s election, and recently huddled with left-wing activists to plot their opposition to Trump.

Kushner has seen his White House influence steadily increase since winning an internal war over Steve Bannon, the populist former CEO of Breitbart News. Although the feud has since ended, it’s well-known that Bannon doesn’t trust Kushner.

As one official close to Bannon previously told The Daily Beast, “Steve thinks Jared is worse than a Democrat, basically.”

[nathanbedford]

I have already praised him for the Goresuch appointment, for his intervention in Syria, for his appointment of Secretary of State etc.

He gets no credit now for having beat Hillary in November, his ranking as president is not fixed merely by winning the election we have to judge him for what he does as president.

Part of the role of being a president for which he must be judged is his ability to control his own party and his ability to intimidate the other party into fashioning legislation that he wants. In other words, he must lead. Apart from executive orders of which I approve, he has betrayed us on the continuing resolution and all that it contains and on the reform of healthcare so far, not to mention NAFTA, Paris, Iran, Chinese currency (a phony issue from the beginning), prosecuting Hillary-and the list goes on.

People like you told us in the nominating process that the Photoshop man garbed in a Superman suit astride the globe would lead the nation with supernatural powers and cut deals we would not believe. Now when possessed of the responsibility he is incapable of doing what Ronald Reagan did and what virtually every other successful president has done, bend Congress to his will. Instead, the best that might be said of him is that Congress has bent him to its will, or, worse, Trump all along has been for Obamacare, against the wall, for Planned Parenthood, etc. etc. In any event, it is undeniable that he has joined forces with them and not only abandoned his campaign promises but signed on to contrary results and threatened those who stood for his promises.

[nathanbedford]

Donald Trump ran a campaign against Goldman Sachs, he and his followers pilloried Cruz for his alleged taint by virtue of his association with Goldman Sachs and then when Trump got power he reversed every principle upon which he campaigned and appointed five Goldman Sachs' principals to his inner circle and installed them into positions of highest authority.

You resort to relativism to rationalize Trump's betrayal because the man who did not become president had a wife who worked for Goldman Sachs.

[Just mythoughts]

Since the outrage is over nondisclosure of connections.. it was Ted Cruz's nondisclosure of a Goldman Sacks loan that then candidate Trump thumped Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz Didn’t Report Goldman Sachs Loan in a Senate Race
By MIKE McINTIREJAN. 13, 2016

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html

I do not consider a VAT tax conservative, and I have little doubt that Ted Cruz's VAT tax was the work of Heidi Cruz, given her former writings for a North American Trade Agreement.

The bigger point is that these former Goldman Sacks people now work for US. They no longer work for Goldman Sacks, packing dollar donations to political campaigns for VAT taxes.

[Freedom56v2]

“He is now the sort of go-between, between President Trump and people like Goldman Sachs and/or George Soros that might have business in the White House,”

---

There should be NO go-between Soros and anyone in the White House or anywhere else!

Regarding Soros, I rather think Hungary is on the right track ;)

The campaign is over...Jared should go back to tending his family’s real estate holdings, of which Soros is an investor...

[Freedom56v2]

Love Peter but this is a stretch. Kushner bros. raised money, some of it from a fund Soros is invested with. It isn’t possible to go get a term sheet and know all the dollars in the fund you’re negotiating with. Not a one to one relationship. The kid is brilliant and a bit of a squish, there’s no doubt, but going after him on this is libtardish.

---

I believe there have been other concerns regarding Jared...related to dealings with foreign representatives, etc.

While in car today, I heard radio interview with Hannity and Eric Trump’s wife that she works for PR firm that was working with Trump’s commercial—the one that CNN refused to air touting President’ Trump’s successful 100 days.

So she is working with and for the President filling an important role, but not as directly; a role that does not raise the kind of questions regarding access that Jared’s role does.

Though Jared is smart—(some say not so much in real estate) and may be brilliant in the campaign arena, many have numerous concerns about him...If he is truly indispensable to President Trump, perhaps he would better serve if he would take on a less powerful, direct role.

[odawg]

“People like you told us in the nominating process that the Photoshop man garbed in a Superman suit astride the globe would lead the nation with supernatural powers and cut deals we would not believe.”

That sentence reveals that you are, and I say this as gently as I can, certifiably insane.

[BeadCounter]

Planned Parenthood has been defunded, us pro-lifers like that, that isn’t a Soros value and Trump now becomes the biggest pro-life president ever.

Not to you in particular, I heard Levine earlier, I don’t see why people like Levine miss this about the new healthcare bill.

[arrogantsob]

Though Trump has never been perceived as a “conservative”, which is almost a meaningless term since we are not in favor of conserving much of the crap from our government and society at large.

However, Trump will accomplish more than any “conservative” who find it difficult to win statewide elections for the Senate. How many conservatives are there in that body.]

Trump’s most important role has been to show that the Ratmedia can be fought and defeated and need not be feared. That is why he faces such opposition.

If conservatives take this lesson to heart, he will have achieved one of the most important changes in American politics. His EOs alone have ditched decades of federal over-regulation and there will be more to follow.

Your downplaying of his accomplishments is not appropriate and his constituents need to support him to the greatest extent possible because his fight is our fight and criticism just hands the Ratmedia and its party strength and aid.

[arrogantsob]

What good does it to change the Constitution if the courts won’t follow it?

Nor do I have faith that people today are up to achieving anything positive or better than the document. The problem is abiding by the Constitution not changing it.

[nathanbedford]

What good does it to change the Constitution if the courts won’t follow it?

This is an objection we hear every time the issue of restoring the Constitution to its original intent by the means provided in the Constitution itself, Article V, is raised. It betrays an ignorance of the Article V movement which sadly is often conscious. The objection is answered completely and satisfactorily for any open-minded observer but that is of no matter because it will be raised by the same people over and over again because they simply ignore the answers which have been presented for years.

The premise of the question of course is only partially true, the courts have followed the Constitution and often give us results we like. When the courts failed to follow the Constitution it is often the result of decades of accretions which ultimately result in a holding which is 180° contrary to original intent. The sequence of decisions on privacy starting with Griswold vs. Connecticut on the issue of whether married couple could employ birth control made its way through the courts in case after case always extending the presumed right of privacy into new areas until it embraced abortion. So, yes the courts over time failed to follow the original intent of the Constitution but it is also necessary to say that these accretions occur over time. A remedy which is successful, therefore, will have a shelf life well into the lives of my grandchildren. An example which is often cited as the 13th amendment which prohibited slavery. It has stood the test of time, the courts have not reversed this amendment, to my knowledge slavery is still illegal in America. The amendment worked.

The Article V movement provides a remedy for the creeping overreach of our court system by creating systemic remedies, generally bringing the courts under the control of the state legislatures who can overrule if they can muster a supermajority. There are other such solutions but the key is to understand the solutions of virtually all the problems addressed by amendments being proposed for Article V are remedies which are systemic in nature. Process is adjusted so that the distortions which we have seen are much less likely to continue to prevail. Remedies and oversight are installed to rein in runaway judges, runaway bureaucrats and runaway federal legislators.

The materials in support of the Article V movement are within easy reach, they have been laid out for you on Free Republic many times, they are accessible within the top headlines of this forum in red styled, "convention of states." The problem is not the answers to these repeated objections, the problem is to get objectors even to acknowledge that solutions and answers have been rendered up and to deal with the real facts rather than to persist in repeating shopworn objections.

I encourage you to educate yourself about this matter.

[nathanbedford]

Though Trump has never been perceived as a “conservative”, which is almost a meaningless term since we are not in favor of conserving much of the crap from our government and society at large.

One is at a loss to know how to respond to this observation. First, Trump ran as a conservative, an assertion which people like me often challenged. Second, many on this forum insisted the Trump was a conservative and further argued that people like Ted Cruz and others were not conservative. In effect we were asked to accept a redefinition of the term "conservative" so that candidate Trump would qualify.

Here we see that the pattern of disparaging everything in order to defend Donald Trump goes on. I identified this very early in his campaign when I began to list the people that have to be destroyed in order to protect Donald Trump. There is virtually no Republican, conservative, or competing candidate who was not defamed by Trump or on these threads by his supporters who turned their venom against any FReeper who did not participate in this infamous parody of conservatism.

Now, inevitably, we see the very concept of conservatism itself being trashed in order to uphold Donald Trump. I do not believe that conservatism is a "meaningless term," I believe it is the only hope for the preservation of our culture, our Constitution, our prosperity for ourselves and our progeny.

Trump’s most important role has been to show that the Ratmedia can be fought and defeated and need not be feared. That is why he faces such opposition.

Sadly, that might well be true.

That is not the whole reason why he faces such opposition, although I grant is part of the reason. A major part of the reason for the blatant animosity of the press and academia and many independents as well as Democrats is undeniably his big mouth. His denigration of Mexicans and women by way of illustration even if well-intentioned left him open to charges of racism and sexism. Nixon said I handed my enemies a weapon and they use that against me, or words to that effect. Trump is doing the same. He can make his points against the press without leaving himself vulnerable to being such a boorish Neanderthal but he will not, apparently he is unable to control himself. The argument that he is a genius public relations expert when he does this is simply silly.

His EOs alone have ditched decades of federal over-regulation and there will be more to follow.

If you hope to change the century long historic creep of progressivism with a few executive orders, you simply do not understand progressivism or the nature of executive orders. What he has undone can be re-done with the stroke of a pen. You reject the possibility of real, permanent solutions through the utilization of Article V for the feel-good, impermanent remedies of executive orders.

Your downplaying of his accomplishments is not appropriate and his constituents need to support him to the greatest extent possible because his fight is our fight and criticism just hands the Ratmedia and its party strength and aid.

When his fight is our fight I am delighted to support him, the problem is much of the day is consumed with trying to figure out what his policies are and, too often, realizing that they are not conservative. I suggest to you by way of example that his endorsement of either one of the two Ryancare bills and certainly his support of the disastrous continuing resolution demonstrates that at core he is not conservative, far from it.

But you have already told us that that does not matter to you.

We owe ourselves and his constituents the duty of telling the truth. Why? Because so long as they put their faith in a man they will be disappointed, better we learn the truth and turn to the constitutional provision which will indeed win "our fight."

[nathanbedford]

That sentence reveals that you are, and I say this as gently as I can, certifiably insane.

I doubt any reader of this thread will take this comment seriously, in fact I believe it will redound against you when encountered by any fair-minded conservative who believes in fair play.

[odawg]

“fair-minded conservative”?

The only way you could divine that descriptive sentence about me would be to refer to my previous posts about Trump, and there is not a scintilla of evidence of such an attitude in any of my post.

I am not concerned at all about something I post redounding against me.

[arrogantsob]

Anyone paying attention understands that the language and definitions of words has changed. Now the sordid and perverted is called “gay” when that is as from gay as can be.

Political language has also changed so that the “liberal” was one who was anti-monarchical and anti-government and “conservative” was a monarchist and pro-government. During the 1800s it became even more inaccurate to use those terms. I prefer to call myself a traditionalist and a nationalist rather than conservative.

I supported Trump and still do because he showed that he could win and was a welcome change from the politicians most of us despise. He will achieve more for conservatism than any conservative ever has. Will I have disagreements with some of his policies. Yes. But I understand that the Swamp has deadly and poisonous creatures within it and is doing its best to divide him and his supporters. Fortunately, most of us understand what is a afoot.

Latino voters seem to be more supportive of the President and are in favor of the repatriation he has started. They also understand that he never attacked them as a whole but the criminal elements within them. Complaining about a La Raza judge is not outrageous. The things you complain about are the same things the Left is outraged over. But the fact of the matter is people were delighted to hear someone not tip-toe around controversy and speak his mind.

As for as women go - ask those who hold high positions within his businesses. They, like the males, are almost universally loyal to the man. Even those eliminated on the Apprentice have nothing bad to say about him. Not even ex-wives.

As to any media genius - it seems clear that the man had the Demedia running in circles shooting from every angle to bring the man down as it was so used to with Republicans. Most of the Republicans he “defamed” are the same ones which are commonly hated around here.

[arrogantsob]

The essence of the Article V provisions is that under certain conditions a convention of the states can be called.

Should Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Robert and Gosvenor Morris, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington be shown to have re-incarnated I would look favorably on such a convention. But not the pygmies of the presence.

I am curious as to why someone concerned about the Constitution has as his avatar a man who did his best to destroy it. Since you are an excellent writer and, apparently intelligent this seems particularly odd.

[EnquiringMind]

Trump, not Obammy?

[sargon]

I have already praised him for the Goresuch appointment, for his intervention in Syria, for his appointment of Secretary of State etc.

How gracious of you to praise the President for the Gorsuch nomination and a couple other items. You couldn't be more grudging if you tried.

[President Trump] has betrayed us...on the reform of healthcare so far

There's lies, and there's damn lies, and that's a damn lie.

So both President Trump and the House Freedom Caucus have "betrayed us" on Obamacare repeal & replace?

President Trump has been consistent regarding "repealing and replacing Obamacare" since the earliest days of his campaign. He never said it would be "repeal only".

And so now, even with the vaunted House Freedom Caucus on board with this new bill—and even though you know this is necessarily a multi-step process— you try to claim that the President has betrayed us?

That's just totally disingenuous, and once more reveals your inability to control your #NeverTrump impulses—and that's precisely what they are.

[President Trump] has betrayed us on the continuing resolution and all that it contains... not to mention NAFTA, Paris, Iran, Chinese currency (a phony issue from the beginning)

Do you have a frog in your pocket? He's perhaps betrayed you on these issues, because of your completely unreasonable criteria of what constitutes "betrayal".

Your claim with respect to NAFTA is asinine on its face. The same is true for Paris and Iran. None of those things have been definitely addressed, and yet they're all "betrayals" according to your warped reasoning.

That you can draw such ridiculous conclusions after the President being less than four months in office is the height of insincerity and—once again—"betrays" your severe bias.

As for the President's ability to "control 'his' own party"—vrtually the entire leadership structure of which vigorously opposed him during the election—you again show a completely unrealistic—even irrational—mindset.

And regarding prosecuting Hillary—are you serious? The time may come for something like than, but it would be pure insanity to attempt such things before the President has fully consolidated power. The same principle holds regarding risking a government shutdown on a CR relating to a budget that wasn't even his.

You couldn't possibly be more disingenuous on each these points, knowing the practical realities which apply when establishing and wielding political power in Washington DC.

Instead, the best that might be said of him is that Congress has bent him to its will, or, worse, Trump all along has been for Obamacare, against the wall, for Planned Parenthood, etc. etc.

Inasmuch as President Trump arrives in power as an outsider to both entrenched parties, you must be aware how ridiculous that sounds. And that's "the best that might be said of him", of course.

You naively and unrealistically expect a total political outsider to arrive in Washington to bend the entire GOPe Legislature to his will—all in less the four months? Put your crack pipe down.

Your pathological inability to treat President Trump with even a modicum of fairness remains prominently on display—it betrays a profound disregard for the unique situation which this man has to face on a daily basis.

Obviously, you remain utterly incapable of fairly judging this President—or the practical political realities in Washington DC—without subconsciously tainting your analysis with your ingrained #NeverTrump bias...

[papertyger]

And I know an insult from one who uses cliches in the place of thoughts is an honor.

[Albion Wilde]

Clearly, you would have preferred Hillary.

[Albion Wilde]

That’s a laugh.