Jared & Ivanka Made $82 Million in 2017 While WH Advisers

[Jack V Savage]

Remember when people on the right were freaking out over the financial irresponsibility of the Clintons for having so much debt in the White House?

I remember. They left millions in debt. Now that has been hysterically retconned into them swindling and making all kinds of money in office. Ah, brains. Brains suck.

And Cubo in particular expressed outrage about Clinton legally raising money for charity after leaving the State Department. Now all of a sudden, personal enrichment by the president's family is perfectly fine as long as it only violates norms and ethics. It's a dizzying change in standards.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well, hopefully a law was broken and they're prosecuted. I can't say I give a shit if some rich Chinese get special consideration for residency or citizenship. Do you?

Are the taxpayers being defrauded? Is detrimental policy being enacted for personal enrichment? The OP says "critics have expressed concerns". Ok. When someone can flesh that out I'm listening.

Wtf? Yes of course I care about people close to the administration using their influence to get favors for their investors. You don't care about this but flip out over the Clinton Foundation? Pretty hypocritical.

 

[Greoric]

Don't know what you're talking about. You've lately gone full on fascist, right? Advocating murder to prevent free speech. You just discredit your own movement with that, and you will lose.

I believe in democratic gov't with protection of rights.

This'll be my last line along this inquiry, because I have a bad habit of derailing, but what do you imagine secures those rights? A piece of 200 year old parchment? A raised right hand to honor the checks and balances?

 

[Greoric]

Wtf? Yes of course I care about people close to the administration using their influence to get favors for their investors. You don't care about this but flip out over the Clinton Foundation? Pretty hypocritical.

Not really though right? He's saying like in Clinton's instance, if there's evidence of a crime hold them accountable. That doesn't read like it should be very controversial.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not really though right? He's saying like in Clinton's instance, if there's evidence of a crime hold them accountable. That doesn't read like it should be very controversial.

He's saying he doesn't care if people close to the administration use their influence to procure favors for their investors which is crazy to me if you believe there's an issue with the Clinton Foundation.

In fact in the past Cubo himself criticized the Trumps for that incident with the Chinese investors and now in here he's saying "Who cares?"

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Are you saying that you didn't drastically lower your standards here?

I've asked whether or not laws were broken and for specifics on the alleged ethics violations. I don't consider wanting to know the details before forming an opinion to be an exhibition of low standards.

Wtf? Yes of course I care about people close to the administration using their influence to get favors for their investors. You don't care about this but flip out over the Clinton Foundation? Pretty hypocritical.

You're generalizing. I wasn't. I said I didn't care if some paperwork pertaining to immigration was expedited. In the scheme of things I don't give a shit about it. Some rich guys wanna spend their money in the USA and I should cry about someone enabling them to do it more quickly? Half the country defends illegal aliens and I'm supposed to care about this? Pardon me if I'm far more concerned with rendition and torture, drone striking innocents and American citizens, skirting the FOIA, the courts leaving the 2nd Amendment out in the cold, federal politicians getting better stock market returns than the professionals, etc.

If there's some real corruption here how about you go ahead and articulate it. If you can't do that then you're not in the position to denigrate others for not sharing your conclusion.

Don't know what "flip out" means. Is that what you're doing here? Is it flipping out whenever I express that I think someone did something wrong or just when it's Hilary? As for hypocrisy, would that go both ways? If you defended the Clintons do you need to extend that same benefit of the doubt to the Trumps? If not, why's that?

 

[Darkballs]

He's saying like in Clinton's instance, if there's evidence of a crime hold them accountable. That doesn't read like it should be very controversial.

No. What's being said is that the standard of "well so long as it's technically not illegal, I'm fine with corruption," has never been the standard until Trump.

And it's a pathetic standard.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're generalizing. I wasn't. I said I didn't care if some paperwork pertaining to immigration was expedited. In the scheme of things I don't give a shit about it. Some rich guys wanna spend their money in the USA and I should cry about someone enabling them to do it more quickly? Half the country defends illegal aliens and I'm supposed to care about this? Pardon me if I'm far more concerned with rendition and torture, drone striking innocents and American citizens, skirting the FOIA, the courts leaving the 2nd Amendment out in the cold, federal politicians getting better stock market returns than the professionals, etc.

If there's some real corruption here how about you go ahead and articulate it. If you can't do that then you're not in the position to denigrate others for not sharing your conclusion.

Lol at those deflection. "B-But Mexicans and torture!"

Guess what, I care about those things too its just not mutually incompatible with caring about incidents like the one with the Chinese investors or the general fishiness surrounding Trump and his associates.

Don't know what "flip out" means. Is that what you're doing here? Is it flipping out whenever I express that I think someone did something wrong or just when it's Hilary? As for hypocrisy, would that go both ways? If you defended the Clintons do you need to extend that same benefit of the doubt to the Trumps? If not, why's that?

Flip out refers to the fact that you consistently deflect to the Clintons when Trump or his family and associates are accused of corruption.

I never looked into the Clinton Foundation allegations too closely but she did approve unusually large arms sales to countries that donated to her Foundation and stuff like that is one reason I couldn't vote for her. But please, continue deflecting to Hillary...

 

[Greoric]

He's saying he doesn't care if people close to the administration use their influence to procure favors for their investors which is crazy to me if you believe there's an issue with the Clinton Foundation.

In fact in the past Cubo himself criticized the Trumps for that incident with the Chinese investors and now in here he's saying "Who cares?"

Good argument to not allow gov't to get big enough to have favors to actually doll out.

 

[Greoric]

No. What's being said is that the standard of "well so long as it's technically not illegal, I'm fine with corruption," has never been the standard until Trump.

And it's a pathetic standard.

Can I post search for similar outrage among the opposing candidates?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Good argument to not allow gov't to get big enough to have favors to actually doll out.

 

[KnightTemplar]

LOL! I'm sure you'd be totally OK with "advisers" to the president getting $80M-plus for influence if they were in a different party. It's sickening the way Republicans have abandoned all standards to defend this administration.

Conflicts of interest doesn't exist in Drumpfland. Only exists for the Clintons, not cult leaders or their brain dead spawn.

Hilary lost. Get over it

 

[Greoric]

Legit LOLed. Good kill.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Yes politics and money have become intertwined unfortunately.

Clintons showed everyone how easy it was...true story. Look at the past presidents before the Clintons. No one came out as good financially as them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes politics and money have become intertwined unfortunately.

Clintons showed everyone how easy it was...true story. Look at the past presidents before the Clintons. No one came out as good financially as them.

The Clintons left the WH with negative net worth. There is no precedent for this kind of thing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No. What's being said is that the standard of "well so long as it's technically not illegal, I'm fine with corruption," has never been the standard until Trump.

And it's a pathetic standard.

You ducked the question of what questions I supposedly ducked and you're misrepresenting my stance. Shocking.

Lol at those deflection. "B-But Mexicans and torture!"

Guess what, I care about those things too its just not mutually incompatible with caring about incidents like the one with the Chinese investors or the general fishiness surrounding Trump and his associates.

Flip out refers to the fact that you consistently deflect to the Clintons when Trump or his family and associates are accused of corruption.

I never looked into the Clinton Foundation allegations too closely but she did approve unusually large arms sales t countries that donated to her Foundation and stuff like that is one reason I couldn't vote for her. But please, continue deflecting to Hillary...

Deflection? I keep asking for people here to articulate exactly what corruption is taking place and it's nothing but crickets. And I'm the partisan?

You're conflating one instance of expediting paperwork with "general fitness". Come on bro. Step it up. You can't even say someone was harmed by it. Did some poor Muslim not get into the country because Jared reserved the spot for his buddy? If not, you might as well be crying about how many scoops of ice cream are being eaten. You may care about anything and everything under the sun but I don't. In life you're generally wise to pick your battles. That's why I'm hoping for something significant here and am questioning what the actual events are and the applicable law. No different than I did with Hilary.

That's your opinion and it's not based on any reality (but go ahead and prove me wrong). And you should probably stop using the word deflection because it seems to be stunting your understanding. Do I really need to explain to you how legal precedent works? Or how punishment is administered? Hard to take you seriously if you're going to maintain that it's never appropriate to compare situations when that's exactly how the aforementioned work. Cruel and unusual punishment doesn't exist in a vacuum. You look at how various instances of similar conduct/accusations are treated.

So again, what corruption and where's the evidence? It's all I've wanted to talk about here but since there's apparently so little substance to this it's easy for everyone to get distracted by me suggesting inconsistency on Jack's part (which is why I brought up Hilary to him).

 

[Quequeg]

The Clintons left the WH with negative net worth. There is no precedent for this kind of thing.

Don't trouble the Clinton haters with facts.

 

[Quequeg]

You ducked the question of what questions I supposedly ducked and you're misrepresenting my stance. Shocking.





Deflection? I keep asking for people here to articulate exactly what corruption is taking place and it's nothing but crickets. And I'm the partisan?

You're conflating one instance of expediting paperwork with "general fitness". Come on bro. Step it up. You can't even say someone was harmed by it. Did some poor Muslim not get into the country because Jared reserved the spot for his buddy? If not, you might as well be crying about how many scoops of ice cream are being eaten. You may care about anything and everything under the sun but I don't. In life you're generally wise to pick your battles. That's why I'm hoping for something significant here and am questioning what the actual events are and the applicable law. No different than I did with Hilary.

That's your opinion and it's not based on any reality (but go ahead and prove me wrong). And you should probably stop using the word deflection because it seems to be stunting your understanding. Do I really need to explain to you how legal precedent works? Or how punishment is administered? Hard to take you seriously if you're going to maintain that it's never appropriate to compare situations when that's exactly how the aforementioned work. Cruel and unusual punishment doesn't exist in a vacuum. You look at how various instances of similar conduct/accusations are treated.

So again, what corruption and where's the evidence? It's all I've wanted to talk about here but since there's apparently so little substance to this it's easy for everyone to get distracted by me suggesting inconsistency on Jack's part (which is why I brought up Hilary to him).

Trump changed trade policies with China right after Ivanka getting trademarks, is this ok with you?

 

[nostradumbass]

I don't like Ivanka and Kushner being advisers in the first place, but why does this suggest corruption? Is this not roughly what they were earning before Trump became president? Kushner's net worth is like $740 million. Not sure how continuing to make money like he always has suggests "using his position for financial gain" when he was doing the same thing when he wasn't an advisor. I'm fine with getting them out of there, but this seems a bit silly.

And lol at the left wingers ITT thinking it's a point for them that the Clinton's left the WH broke. That means they went from nothing to making $240 million while Hillary was a senator and then secretary of state, largely from Bill giving speeches in foreign countries and to bankers. That is textbook use of political power to become super rich, but we're supposed to be pissed because Jared Kushner has maintained the income he's had for years.

 

[tehend]

Good for them.