Hunter Biden asks GOP: What about Jared Kushner?
Source: The Hill
02/28/24 3:10 PM ET
As Republicans grilled Hunter Biden on Wednesday about his business deals overseas, the president’s son turned the question back on his interrogators. He asked GOP lawmakers about foreign investments secured by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Trump, shortly after he left the White House, according to Democrats participating in the closed-door deposition.
“He drew the distinction between what he has done in a business world with independent businessmen, versus foreign governments, which he did not do any business with — unlike Jared Kushner,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said during a break in the testimony. Among other roles, Kushner oversaw Middle East policy in the Trump White House, and he raised plenty of eyebrows when he secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia six months after leaving public service.
The scrutiny mounted further when The New York Times reported that the advisory panel for the Saudi sovereign wealth fund had recommended against investing in Kushner’s newly launched private equity firm, citing “the inexperience of the … management.” The advice was overruled by a larger board led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a close ally of the Trump administration.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the questioning throughout the morning has been largely cordial, but Hunter Biden became “assertive” when invoking the Kushner episode.
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4495124-hunter-biden-asks-gop-what-about-jared-kushner/
= new reply since forum marked as read
but eventually had the SCOTUS completely negated the Emoluments cases -
By MARK SHERMAN January 25, 2021
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to lawsuits over whether Donald Trump illegally profited off his presidency, saying the cases are moot now that Trump is no longer in office. The high court’s action was the first in an expected steady stream of orders and rulings on pending lawsuits involving Trump now that his presidency has ended. Some orders may result in dismissals of cases since Trump is no longer president.
In other cases, proceedings that had been delayed because Trump was in the White House could resume and their pace even quicken. The justices threw out Trump’s challenge to lower court rulings that had allowed lawsuits to go forward alleging that he violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel and patronize other businesses owned by the former president and his family.
The high court also ordered the lower court rulings thrown out as well and directed appeals courts in New York and Richmond, Virginia, to dismiss the suits as moot now that Trump is no longer in office. The outcome leaves no appellate court opinions on the books in an area of the law that has been rarely explored in U.S. history.
The cases involved suits filed by Maryland and the District of Columbia, and high-end restaurants and hotels in New York and Washington, D.C., that “found themselves in the unenviable position of having to compete with businesses owned by the President of the United States.”
(snip)
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ends-trump-lawsuits-df42ef0eec5fa57edf3e294234051d88
There were other investigations for related reasons - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143047247
but they would probably have to re-jigger whatever had been done prior to that negation and hit it from a different angle.
OT - hadn't seen you for awhile!
