House Intel Committee Findings Contradict Kushner's Testimony

[DonViejo]

by Ryan Goodman
March 30, 2018

Jared Kushner and his attorneys likely did not enjoy something they read when the House Intelligence Committee released its findings on Russian election interference last Thursday. The report, drafted by Chairman Devin Nunes and supported by only GOP members of the Committee, has become yet another instance of a failure of bipartisan investigations on the Hill. Even one of the leading members of the Committee, Republican Trey Gowdy, acknowledged on Fox News Sunday that Americans should “not have confidence in” the report’s conclusion that there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion and should have confidence in what Mueller’s investigation produces instead. (Gowdy recently announced his retirement from Congress citing his distaste for hyper-partisanism in his line of work.) As expected, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to tweet his chosen highlights of the Committee’s findings. There was plenty for the President to champion. Except.

When Kushner read the report’s “Finding #32” he was surely disappointed. That’s because the Committee’s stated conclusion contradicts Kushner’s written statement to Congress concerning the important June 9 meeting with Russians in Trump Tower. The Committee’s finding states that Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Paul Manafort attended the meeting “where they expected to receive…derogatory information on candidate Clinton from Russian sources.”



That line in the Committee’s findings is generally consistent with what Trump Jr. told Congress he expected to receive at the meeting. It is highly inconsistent with what Kushner told Congress.

Kushner’s written statement to Congress, which his lawyers released publicly, denied that he knew what the June 9th meeting was going to be about. That’s at least the most plausible, if not universal understanding, of what Kushner wrote (read, for example, this line-by-line annotation of Kushner’s statement by former federal prosecutor turned defense attorney Renato Mariotti at Just Security). Even the most charitable reading of Kushner’s statement is that he did not directly and unequivocally state he had no foreknowledge of the meeting’s purpose, but that he nevertheless sought to leave the clear impression, with Congress and the public, that he did not know the purpose of the meeting before attending.

more
https://www.justsecurity.org/54408/house-intel-committee-findings-contradict-kushners-testimony/

[gratuitous]

1. Whoopsie

Look for Nevin to come scuttling out to "clarify" the language of Finding #32 to read that nobody anywhere had any idea of what the June 9, 2016 meeting was going to be about; in fact, Junior, Jared and Jughead were as surprised as anyone to find a Russian in the room when they got there.

[SL1]

2. So the committee admits

That Kushner and Junior attempted to collude with the Russians, and They don’t think that’s a crime?

If I hire a hitman to kill my wife, and he turns out to be an undercover cop, the trigger doesn’t have to be pulled for a crime to be committed.