Page 75 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2565737475
Results 2,221 to 2,246 of 2246

Thread: Comrade Trump

  1. #2221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    How is the electorate supposed to factor it into their decision without having any of the information? If they find out a candidate's income or wealth depends greatly on doing business in a certain part of the world, that's fine as long as they know. But that isn't the case with Trump in any way because he refused to disclose anything. In fact, we found out later he actively lied about some of it (Trump Tower Moscow).
    I think we all agree we'd like to see transparency with our candidates and elected officials.

    But are you suggesting that Congress needs to vet the candidates via the law that allows them to look at their taxes? Or maybe that we change the disclosure requirements for candidates to be more thorough? I'm not clear what exactly you're advocating for.

  2. #2222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    I think we all agree we'd like to see transparency with our candidates and elected officials.

    But are you suggesting that Congress needs to vet the candidates via the law that allows them to look at their taxes? Or maybe that we change the disclosure requirements for candidates to be more thorough? I'm not clear what exactly you're advocating for.
    Because of Trump’s financial empire, he’s unusual but if some other candidate had a similar situation (and no we have not had yet) we’d deserve and need to know).
    Last edited by frank ryan; 05-02-2019 at 11:19 AM.

  3. #2223

    Default

    At least 7 foreign countries rented apartments in Trump Tower. Probably violating the emoluments clause of the constitution.



    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1S80PP

  4. #2224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    I think we all agree we'd like to see transparency with our candidates and elected officials.

    But are you suggesting that Congress needs to vet the candidates via the law that allows them to look at their taxes? Or maybe that we change the disclosure requirements for candidates to be more thorough? I'm not clear what exactly you're advocating for.
    Ideally more transparency before the election about where their money is coming from. Not specifically just taxes per se. My interest is primarily related to foreign sources of income to understand any potential conflict of interest when it comes to foreign policy decisions. I don't think that's too much to ask. You can tell the voter not to vote for someone he thinks isn't transparent enough. But the flip side of that is telling the candidate he doesn't have to run if he doesn't want to disclose certain information.

  5. #2225
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    A voter doesn't always know what future US foreign policy is going to be and to what extent it might be influenced by a candidate's personal business dealings without anything being disclosed. Of course they can still vote against it. Others, like you would rather not know.
    I assume you have better reasoning skills then those displayed by concluding that I would "rather not know."

    You have raised a few possible entanglements for Trump: Saudi Arabia and Russia. Are you honestly suggesting that neither of these nations were on any foreign policy radars prior to the 2016 election? Anyone who didn't know about them wasn't paying attention. Are there specific changes you think we need to to the financial disclosures already required?

    Bear in mind, if there is some specific factual basis to conclude there is or might probably be self-dealing or some other crime being committed, then it might be worth a subpoena or an investigation. But you are not getting that from his tax return (unless you think there actually might be a Saudi W-2). But I am not persuaded that it is a good idea to these processes allow to be used simply because we think the sitting president is a sleaze, which we also thought before, but now we are really serious about it and the democrats have the majority.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  6. #2226
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Ideally more transparency before the election about where their money is coming from. Not specifically just taxes per se. My interest is primarily related to foreign sources of income to understand any potential conflict of interest when it comes to foreign policy decisions. I don't think that's too much to ask. You can tell the voter not to vote for someone he thinks isn't transparent enough. But the flip side of that is telling the candidate he doesn't have to run if he doesn't want to disclose certain information.
    Look at this requirement for disclosure that is in place already. What would you change?

    https://www.oge.gov/Web/278eGuide.nsf
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  7. #2227
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    21,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Look at this requirement for disclosure that is in place already. What would you change?

    https://www.oge.gov/Web/278eGuide.nsf
    I already told PAC about this and he gave me some dumb response that it isn’t enough. BlueK will never be happy until trump is out of office. This isn’t about transparency, it’s about getting him out of office.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  8. #2228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I already told PAC about this and he gave me some dumb response that it isn’t enough. BlueK will never be happy until trump is out of office. This isn’t about transparency, it’s about getting him out of office.
    well, at least I'm not faking neutrality.

    He isn't a good president and I do worry about what he's doing, but it's clearly a sensitive topic for some. Maybe I'll just go away for a while.

  9. #2229
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    well, at least I'm not faking neutrality.

    He isn't a good president and I do worry about what he's doing, but it's clearly a sensitive topic for some. Maybe I'll just go away for a while.
    And who is faking neutrality? The same people that are supposedly saying Trump is beyond reproach?
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  10. #2230
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    12,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Look at this requirement for disclosure that is in place already. What would you change?

    https://www.oge.gov/Web/278eGuide.nsf
    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I already told PAC about this and he gave me some dumb response that it isn’t enough. BlueK will never be happy until trump is out of office. This isn’t about transparency, it’s about getting him out of office.

    You guys are sadistic if you expect me to parse the CFR to edit the disclosure requirements. But having devoted <one minute to the section on Liabilities, I'll note that the instruction regarding debt reads: "You must report your own liabilities and those of your spouse and dependent children." Note the "your own." I didn't see, within the time I allotted myself, any reference to debts of entities the reporting person might be involved with.

    I'd add the following to the end of that sentence: ", or any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other entity of which you are an Affiliate." I'd apply the same Affiliate definition as is used with the '33 Act. Given that Trump's report had sixteen line items of debt, on a single page (this was mentioned in my apparently dumb response to Moliere), while reporting ownership of hundreds of businesses, I'd expect there is a lot of unreported obligations and liabilities.

    And yes, we can exclude routine trade payables, but I'd likely include any obligation > $100K.

  11. #2231
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    PAC, BK: Hillary has a solution for you...



    Makes good sense... The Dems are already in bed with the Chinese. They just have to call Feinstein's "office director" to get it done.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  12. #2232
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    You guys are sadistic if you expect me to parse the CFR to edit the disclosure requirements. But having devoted <one minute to the section on Liabilities, I'll note that the instruction regarding debt reads: "You must report your own liabilities and those of your spouse and dependent children." Note the "your own." I didn't see, within the time I allotted myself, any reference to debts of entities the reporting person might be involved with.

    I'd add the following to the end of that sentence: ", or any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other entity of which you are an Affiliate." I'd apply the same Affiliate definition as is used with the '33 Act. Given that Trump's report had sixteen line items of debt, on a single page (this was mentioned in my apparently dumb response to Moliere), while reporting ownership of hundreds of businesses, I'd expect there is a lot of unreported obligations and liabilities.

    And yes, we can exclude routine trade payables, but I'd likely include any obligation > $100K.
    I guess your suggestion would clear up some ambiguity, but given the existing requirements for income disclosure, including ownership of stocks or trusts or various interests, it seems like it would be pretty hard to hide connections to any organizations that might be up to no good. And even so, the information you are asking for may or may not be spelled out on his personal tax form. But i'll defer to you business types.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  13. #2233
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    LOL... How much are these Dem Dummies getting paid to down a bucket of KFC on live TV?



    Untitled.jpg

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  14. #2234

    Default

    Sounds like Trump and Putin spoke by phone and discussed the Mueller report. Super fucking normal behavior.

  15. #2235
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Sounds like Trump and Putin spoke by phone and discussed the Mueller report. Super fucking normal behavior.
    I am guessing Drumpf just want to let him know that we weren’t going to bomb them now since Mueller didn’t find any collusion. That would be the proper thing to do.


    Sent from my iPhone and not some dumb Chinese android POS.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  16. #2236
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    3,123

    Default

    Even-handed treatment of Mueller and Barr. A good read.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...mueller-report

    Barr was under enormous pressure from all sides to say something about Mueller’s report as soon as he received it. He claims he asked Mueller if he wanted to review the March 24 letter, and says that Mueller declined. Barr surely could have worded the March 24 letter more carefully with more time. But I expect that anything he said short of exactly what Mueller wanted him to say would have attracted furious criticism. The decision was clearly Barr’s to make and he had good reasons for what should be disclosed and when, and he explained them publicly.

    In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball.

    [...]

    While I think the criticisms of Barr in connection with the Mueller report have been overheated, I also think Barr made two mistakes. First, he went too far in his May 1 testimony in saying that Trump “fully cooperated” with the special counsel’s investigation. It would have been more accurate to say, as he said in the April 18 press conference, that the White House (meaning the institution independent of the president) “fully cooperated,” and that “the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.” The truth is that the president himself—in his refusal to give a personal interview, and especially in his tweets and actions to harass and threaten and try to impact the Justice Department and special counsel—did not cooperate, much less “fully cooperate.”

    Second, I think Barr made a bigger mistake when he self-consciously said—in his April 18 press conference, and his May 1 testimony—that Mueller cleared the president of “collusion” with the Russians. The technical legal term, as Mueller explained, is “conspiracy,” not “collusion.” Yes, as Mueller noted, the term “collusion” was used by the acting attorney general in confirming the investigation’s scope, and also by the press. And yes, the president has been accused by critics of “collusion” for years now. But consistent with his insistence that the Justice Department makes legal and not political or moral conclusions, it would have been much better for Barr to avoid the term “collusion.” If there was a rebuttal to be made to the “collusion” charge, someone other than the attorney general should have made it. Perhaps Barr thought, as he suggested a few times, that the President was so unjustifiably wronged by the entire process that his full-throated “no collusion” statement was warranted. But Barr opened himself up to legitimate criticism when he assiduously avoided commenting on the merits of extra-criminal conduct that would be harmful to the president, but appeared to comment on such conduct when it was helpful to the president. “We are not in the business of exoneration,” Barr testified. But in some places, especially with respect to the Trump campaign and Russia, he seemed to try to do just that.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. --President Donald J. Trump

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump

    You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

  17. #2237
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    Even-handed treatment of Mueller and Barr. A good read.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...mueller-report
    Barr should have just released the entire, unreacted report... damnit, we paid for it so we want to read it!

    Of course, it seems the democrats are not interested in reading the report...

    Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report

    On the eve of Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, only two lawmakers have set eyes on secret information that Barr withheld from public view.

    Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday.
    [...]
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...dacted-1295105

    They are only interested in how Barr was lying in his summary letter and somehow covering for Drumpf...

    IMG_1731.jpg

    OMG... Can you believe he said this?
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #2238
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Sounds like Trump and Putin spoke by phone and discussed the Mueller report. Super fucking normal behavior.
    Do you think Trump will ever get in trouble for leaving Putin's shaft chafed or orange-colored?
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  19. #2239
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    Mitch says that Drumpf opened up a can of whoop-ass on the Russians... Unlike the wuss Obama.

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  20. #2240
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Mitch says that Drumpf opened up a can of whoop-ass on the Russians... Unlike the wuss Obama.
    "I don't see any reason why he would be involved..."
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  21. #2241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Mitch says that Drumpf opened up a can of whoop-ass on the Russians... Unlike the wuss Obama.

    That's why he calls up daddy Vladamir to talk about the Mueller report and call it all a hoax again? Let's not forget when Obama wanted to issue a condemnation of Russia's interference in the election with bipartisan support, McConnell refused. You can't be that dumb Ted.
    Last edited by frank ryan; 05-07-2019 at 05:52 PM.

  22. #2242
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    Clapper seems to have a very hard time finally admitting that the Obama administration was spying on the Drumpf campaign...



    Maybe he is worried about something?
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  23. #2243
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    LOL@Dumb Dems... Barr has to be the worst at covering up for Drumpf.

    Top Dems Now Have Access to All But Two Full, Seven Partial Lines of Mueller’s Obstruction Report

    As Congressional Democrats prepare to hold attorney general William Barr in contempt over his supposed lack of transparency, it’s worth remembering that he has made available to top Democrats the entirety of volume II of the Mueller report, save for two full and seven partial lines, which were redacted to protect grand jury secrecy in keeping with federal law.

    In order to provide lawmakers with greater transparency into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Department of Justice placed a less-redacted version of his report in a secure room on Capitol Hill, and granted access to that room to congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of intelligence and judiciary committees in the House and Senate.

    As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.
    [...]
    Rather than examining the entirety of volume II of the Mueller report, save for the aforementioned lines, Democrats have advanced a vote to hold attorney general William Barr in contempt on the grounds that the two-time attorney general has cynically orchestrated a wholesale coverup.

    As assistant attorney general William Boyd argued in a letter sent to House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler on Monday, Democrats’ refusal to examine the most transparent version of the report that Barr can legally make available, “naturally raises questions about the sincerity of the committee’s interest in and purported need for the redacted material.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...nal-democrats/

    I guess it is not really about the report.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  24. #2244

    Default

    Makes tons of sense. Not a questionable or foolish move at all by the Vichy GOP.

    Top Republican says Senate unlikely to vote on any election security bills

    “At this point I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we mark them up,” Blunt said.

    When Durbin asked why that was the case, Blunt said, “I think the majority leader is of the view that this debate reaches no conclusion. And frankly, I think the extreme nature of H.R. 1 from the House makes it even less likely we are going to have that debate.”

    H.R. 1 is a sweeping election reform package that includes language on election security and integrity. The House passed the bill along party lines earlier this year, and Senate Democrats introduced their version of the legislation in March.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has publicly said he won’t allow a vote on the bill.

    When asked about Blunt's remarks on Wednesday, McConnell's office pointed to the majority leader's "case closed" comments earlier this week on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference in 2016.

    Durbin said there's a clear need to act on election security legislation.

    “At the CIA and intelligence agencies, millions of dollars are being spent to stop the Russians from making a mess of the 2020 election. But in the United States Senate we can’t bring a bill to the floor to even debate it. It doesn’t speak very well of us,” Durbin said.


    EAC Chairwoman Christy McCormick drew attention to a staffing shortage at the agency.

    “The EAC does not have full time employees devoted to these new components of providing election security support,” McCormick said.

    According to McCormick, the EAC’s budget has been cut by 50 percent since 2010, when it had 49 staffers. The agency now has 22 staff members.

    “Without additional resources, we simply will not be able to provide the breadth of support election officials need and expect from the EAC to ensure secure, accessible, and efficient elections,” McCormick said.
    https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...ction-security

  25. #2245
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Makes tons of sense. Not a questionable or foolish move at all by the Vichy GOP.

    Top Republican says Senate unlikely to vote on any election security bills



    https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...ction-security
    Does HR 1 include voter ID to keep Russians from voting in our elections? Of course, only 67% of voters think that a photo ID should be required for voting.

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  26. #2246

    Default

    Kushner Companies and Russian individuals exchanged suspicious money transfers at the height of the 2016 race, ex-Deutsche Bank employee says


    A former Deutsche Bank employee told The New York Times she flagged a series of suspicious money transfers between Kushner Companies and Russian individuals at the height of the 2016 US election.

    Tammy McFadden used to work at the bank's anti-money laundering division and was terminated last year. She told The Times she discovered the transfers in the summer of 2016. At the time, Donald Trump was the Republican nominee for president, and the Russian government's effort to interfere in the US election and propel Trump to the Oval Office was well underway....


    McFadden's discovery of the transfers between Kushner Companies and Russian individuals raises new questions about Jared Kushner's potential involvement in outreach between members of the Trump campaign and individuals associated with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

    Kushner came under scrutiny for his involvement in several episodes that investigators believed may have amounted to a quid pro quo between the campaign and the Russian government.

    In one instance, Kushner met in December 2016 with Sergey Gorkov, a Russian banker who is the head of the state-controlled Vnesheconombank (VEB). VEB is under US sanctions, and Gorkov is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/jare...rce=reddit.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •