‘Kushnergate’ Is A Big Fat Nothing-Burger


Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner privately met with dozens of officials from a wide range of nations as part of his role during the campaign and transition as conduit to foreign governments. But the liberal media, led by The Washington Post, have zeroed in on only one of those countries: Russia.

Why? Because the “Russia stole the election” narrative helps them explain how a political novice like President Trump could beat the seasoned Democratic candidate they’d anointed to carry President Barack Obama’s torch, Hillary Clinton.

In fact, the WaPo knew Kushner served as the official “primary point of contact” with the Russians and other foreign ambassadors as early as Feb. 10, when it published a fairly flattering story about him serving as “a shadow diplomat” in talks with “more than two dozen countries.”

The February story noted that Kushner had secretly met with foreign officials in New York and even established “back-channel communications” with other nations. But back then it portrayed the off-the-grid talks as healthy, because Kushner was “a moderating influence” among what it viewed as foreign-policy “extremists” in the new White House.

“Some of the leaders who have dealt with Kushner said they were initially skeptical but found him to be a good listener and courteous intermediary who quickly intuits the core of their issues,” the paper reported.

But then, as the manufactured “Russiagate” conspiracy was fizzling, the WaPo published its sensational May 26 story that made it seem as if there was something nefarious about what the paper three months earlier had known Kushner was doing. This time, his private, back-channel meetings with Russia were cast in a dark and sinister light.

The Washington Post also based its story last week on an anonymous letter. That’s right: It has no idea who wrote it.

The mystery author claimed access to intercepts of an “open line” call from Kislyak to Moscow, in which the ambassador talked about the alleged arrangement with Kushner. Even if true, it means Russia may have been trying to feed disinformation — which the paper greedily bit on.

In other words, the WaPo relied on a walk-in letter from a person it can’t identify, who relied on an alleged account by Russia’s top diplomat about what was discussed with Kushner. No wonder the paper hedged its “scoop” by repeatedly using the term “apparent” throughout the story.


The discredited Kushner-Russia story was a last-ditch effort to keep alive the narrative that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with Moscow. But it bombed. If anything, it showed they didn’t have substantial contacts during the election.

After all, If Kushner and Russia were arranging a “back-channel communication” in December, it means the Trump camp didn’t have one with Russia during the campaign. The WaPo’s “scoop” inadvertently blew up the media’s whole “collusion” theory. Read more at NY POST.



  1. Would like to go back to the debate where both candidates were asked if they’d accept the results with the lib trash smugly saying “of course” (because she was sure it was in the bag)

  2. Anonymous, I don’t remember her saying “of course” as she was so sure she’d win and didn’t think she would “need to” concede. She was only worried that Trump would not concede. What a sore loser she and the Dems are. Will it take them 8 years, until after Trump’s 2nd term of presidency, to stop whining?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here