Here's What Jared Kushner Has to Worry About From Robert Mueller

That social media army of trolls came from somewhere.

I've mentioned this before, but in light of the news that Robert Mueller has hired Ryan K. Dickey, who specializes in internet crimes, I suppose it is worth reiterating what a source on the President's legal team told me about Kushner.

Remember when Trump announced his intentions to run? There were more than a handful of people who came forward and said they were paid to attend to boost crowd numbers. Then right after that, Trump's online social media fans exploded. They not only exploded in support, but the pro-Trump Twitter troll army went out in full force to flood the timeline of anyone critical of Trump.

Curiously, many of those people seemed to operate on a Moscow time zone and many of them still operate.

A source from Trump's legal team tells me the Mueller team is looking into whether Kushner hired the social media mob to promote Trump and make his initial support look substantial, while also running interference for him against his critics. There is thinking inside Trump world that Kushner did this and the problem is that he did it from separate, non-campaign funds, that were then never disclosed. That would be a campaign finance violation.

Then there is the whole issue of using a Russian based rent-a-mob to promote a candidate and harass that candidate's critics. The sources on the Trump team who told me this some months ago think this remains the most credible line of attack against Kushner by Mueller.

Two points:

First, as using trolls is not illegal, as it is a commercially-obtained service, much like buying Facebook Likes and whatnot. Unethical, certainly, but not illegal as long as no criminal violations such as breaking passwords or TOS is involved. Having said that, that leads to point 2, payment and disclosure: Certainly the Trumps can handle this payment on their own, but they still have to disclose it. So it appears that the only issue may involve improper campaign donations, but nowhere near collusion with a state entity.

morons. "what a source on the President's legal team told me about Kushner." "The sources on the Trump team who told me" aaand.... a wapo link for...credibility?

"many of those people seemed to operate on a Moscow time zone " heh heh classic. get out much?

Jared Kushner isn't Donald Trump, so if Kushner did do this, how does it make a campaign finance violation? Another thing is, how does the Trump legal team know about this? do you really think Mueller would go and tell the people he's trying to take out. information, like this? I've been hearing about these trolls, for a long time, and not being the internet savvy guy, what does one of these trolls look like on twitter, or any web site? How was this found out?

@GWally = 2 thumbs up!

Will the crime be, "the rent a mob did not have a union label" or "this Russian gang failed to make proper contributions to the Clinton Foundation"?

Good one, Mitten. I am so sick of these endless, taxpayer wasting investigations, I ready to scream. What a colossal waste of time and money. Our money.

Hmmm. Not just anonymous "sources" but third or fourth hand reports from anonymous sources. It seems that even IF " There were (sic) more than a handful of people who came forward and said they were paid to attend to boost crowd numbers" why, without proof, would these people be automatically assumed to be telling the truth? Why would there be an assumption that they were not just trying to diminish the PR impact of large crowds at Trump rallies? If one admits he was willing to take money to attend a function to create a false impression, then why wouldn't this person be the kind of person to lie about being paid to attend to create a false impression? Bragging about attracting large numbers is advertising, it is PR, and the goal is always to show the product in the best possible light. This is why Hillary's people showed photos of a small section of an arena where everyone sat and did not show the vast numbers of empty seats. It's PR. And just who did this "more than a handful of people" report TO? How and why would several to many (given the purposeful vagueness of "more than a handful" it could be six, which is more than the number of fingers on a hand, or it could be many dozens, which is the point...) people decide to go to someone, presumably the same someone for all of them, to say they had been paid? How would they know who to talk to? Did they band together to report to this person, who they somehow identified as someone who would care, or did they trickle in one or two at a time? As it appears that there was one source for all these reports of being paid to attend, did anyone question the veracity, or the agenda, of the source? If this were true, would it be worse than busing in thousands of non-residents paid by a union to vote in a recall election in another state to unseat a duly elected governor? One action is merely for PR purposes, the other was to subvert the electoral process. No, I'm not playing "whattabout" I am merely pointing out the selective outrage of some and the determination of anti-Trumpists to elevate any action and any accusation to the level of Something Very Wrong. There are plenty of Something Very Wrongs to be addressed. A PR move, if it even happened, is so far below that bar is not worth fretting about even it if did happen, and there is absolutely no indication than it did. it's silly, it's tiresome and I wish it would stop.

America would be much better off with Prince Jared back in NYC. If he pulled some shady stuff, maybe he will get sent back there. We'd all be better off with the royalty back at Trump Tower and let Trump and the actual executive officials run the government.

Conversations