Authors Seth Abramson
(2) Since 2016, Kushner has connived, with Saudi help, to force the Qataris (literally at a ship's gunpoint) to "loan" him $900 million.
(3) This is consistent with the Steele dossier.
(4) Kushner is unlikely to ever have to pay the "loan" back.
Jared Kushner has a net worth of almost $324 million. But it appears that he paid little or no federal income taxes from 2009 to 2016, according to a review of confidential financial documents obtained by NYT. https://t.co/pMQDeCeDNq
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 13, 2018
2/ So as you read about his tax practices, you should take from it that it's practices of this sort that ensure that he's able to extort money from foreign governments while Trump is POTUS without ever having to pay the money back. It also explains why he's in the Saudis' pocket.
3/ It's why the Saudis *say* he's in their pocket. It's why emoluments and federal bribery statutes matter. It's why Kushner was talking to the Saudi Crown Prince the day before the murdered Washington Post journalist was taken. It's why the Trump administration now does nothing.

2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.
(EXCERPT) Here are the first excerpts to be published from my forthcoming 450-page, 1,650-endnote book PROOF OF COLLUSION. More excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/ZJsnHcVwGi pic.twitter.com/LDu7deiPJU
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 15, 2018
PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.
BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.
But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.
BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.
New reports show more and more evidence Michael Flynn ran a collusion channel to Russia for Trump's campaign https://t.co/upgnbTAkAh pic.twitter.com/6LNtrXaSf7
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) October 20, 2018
2/ Trump had two opportunities to formally name Flynn and his co-conspirator Erik Prince to his NatSec team during the 2016 campaign—he declined to do so *both times*. In the criminal justice system this is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Trump knew what these men were doing.
3/ That Trump sought out Flynn—not the other way around—in August '15, and began using him as his chief NatSec adviser right away, but never put him on his National Security Advisory Committee is critical evidence that Flynn was working on projects that had to be "off the books."
By the time I introduced Donald Trump to the Egyptian president in September 2016, a politically motivated surveillance operation by at least the UK and Australia was targeted at me and the campaign for seven months. Who authorized that? Congress has the answers.
— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) October 7, 2018
2/ Trump's legal duty under the federal aiding and abetting statute not to do anything that might induce further Russian attacks was officially triggered on August 17, 2016, at his first classified briefing. Why was he meeting with a "Kremlin intermediary" weeks after this date?
Trump has been telling a number of people he\u2019s in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August (no that isn\u2019t how it works but simply sharing the information). https://t.co/kaXSXKnpF0
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 1, 2021
1/ Journalists need to be very careful in how they discuss this breaking news. Individuals who have provided cover for Trump repeatedly in the past—like Maggie Haberman—are reporting evidence of a possible seditious conspiracy as mere loose talk from an addled man. Sorry, but no.
2/ There are efforts afoot now in GA, AZ, NV, and WI to delegitimize Biden's victories there. Meanwhile, Trump advisors Flynn and Powell are saying that once those victories are delegitimized, the military should move in. If Trump is in on the conversations, it's a coup attempt.
3/ As anyone who has ever read a book or watched a movie or taken a history course knows, the most important element of a coup is the agreement of the individual who'll be installed as a nation's new president to participate in the installation. Without that there can be no coup.
4/ What Trump is privately doing, according to the NYT, is the *opposite* of what Lyndon Johnson famously did in saying that even if nominated he wouldn't run for president. Trump is telling the coup conspirators that he *will accept a re-installation* if they can make it happen.
Looking forward to watching @SethAbramson\u2019s world collapse around him when he realizes he has been absolutely wrong about his apparent \u201cinsight\u201d since day 1. I repeat, trust the insiders, not the nuts.
— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) October 8, 2018
2/ As GP rails against Mueller to help sell movie rights to his story (or whatever), here's what his attorneys actually said in court: "Our firm would in a second stand up if we saw prosecutorial or governmental misconduct. We have seen no such thing." But they didn't stop there.
3/ George's attorneys added, "We have seen no entrapment. We have seen no set-up by U.S. intelligence people. Everything we saw, they’ve been on the square." So apparently on the same day my world "collapses," George's lawyers will *also* experience a massive temporal distortion.

1/ If you haven't yet seen my analysis of Trump's January 6 "incitement to insurrection" speech, you can find it at the link below. This thread will look at four shorter—but deeply consequential—speeches just before Trump's, all by Trump allies or family.
(THREAD) Media has yet to do a deep dive on precisely what Trump *said* in his January 6 speech in DC\u2014a speech now called an "incitement to insurrection," and the basis for an article of impeachment coming Monday. This thread unpacks the speech. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET. pic.twitter.com/ba6eaNScNW
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) January 9, 2021
2/ DONALD TRUMP JR.
Trump Jr.'s speech on January 6—which ended less than an hour before his father incited an insurrection—is one of the most inscrutable of the day, because its beginning includes some promisingly responsible rhetoric. Then it descends into madness and chaos.
3/ "I'm looking at the crowd here, and you did it all [congregate here] without burning down buildings! You did it without ripping down churches! Without looting! I didn't know that that was possible!" Within 2 hours of his speech, Don Jr.'s audience would be looting the Capitol.
4/ So obviously Don Jr.'s opening is ironic to a historic degree, but this isn't the first time we've heard this rhetoric from him. He habitually ignores right-wing violence because he knows that his chief rhetorical canard—which marries progressivism and violences—gets applause.
Breaking: White House finds no corroboration of sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh after examining reports from FBI's latest probe https://t.co/nnNKmjz8ke pic.twitter.com/HtiQN9C6IK
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 4, 2018
2/ No, I'm serious: the only people the White House is trying to reach here are those who don't use the internet for news—ever—or those radicals who only read fringe publications that lie to them daily. If you've been following the Kavanaugh nomination online, you know the truth.