Evidence that the Saudi-Arabia-Kushner-story is true:

[DetlefK]

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jared-kushner-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/

What exactly Kushner and the Saudi royal talked about in Riyadh may be known only to them, but after the meeting, Crown Prince Mohammed told confidants that Kushner had discussed the names of Saudis disloyal to the crown prince, according to three sources who have been in contact with members of the Saudi and Emirati royal families since the crackdown. Kushner, through his attorney’s spokesperson, denies having done so.

“Some questions by the media are so obviously false and ridiculous that they merit no response. This is one. The Intercept should know better,” said Peter Mirijanian, a spokesperson for Kushner’s lawyer Abbe Lowell.


------------

If you accuse someone, an innocent person's first instinct is to deny. But the spokesperson did not deny.

What did the spokesperson do instead of denying the accusation?

The spokesperson attacked a third party (the question itself). The spokesperson attacked the questioner (The Intercept).

If you accuse someone and that person's first instinct is not to deny the accusation but to attack you, that's evidence that that person is lying.

[dembotoz]

1. wrapped around his finger

[unblock]

2. i agree with your general take on "merit no response", but i think "so obviously false" is a denial.

which makes it a peculiar thing to say. supposedly these questions "merit no response", yet he gave a response anyway.

i'll agree that kushner seems guilty as hell, but i don't think this statement would be in any way useful in proving that.

[DetlefK]

3. It's not solid proof, but it's a hint for an educated guess.