Where's the corruption? Free market is SA is allowed to choose who they want for whatever reason to broker the deal. They like Jared's firm over JPMorgan. That isn't corruption.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Where's the corruption? Free market is SA is allowed to choose who they want for whatever reason to broker the deal. They like Jared's firm over JPMorgan. That isn't corruption.

---

OK, buddy. . Now do Truth Social and Trump Coins.

Seems like we have three camps:

• Admits the Trump family engages in corruption (most of us)
• It's OK because everybody does it (some of us)
• It's not corruption (population = 1, Yukon Cornelius)

Done with this argument - not trying to convince you. Enjoy this administration, because I'm fairly certain you'll be back to claiming political corruption when the other side is in power!

It is absolutely cronyism AT THE VERY LEAST.
For the consortium, SA chose to add Silver Lake, and wait for it…Affinity Partners. Lmao

People would rightfully go nuts anytime the Clinton's added any money to their foundation, but this is okay. Complete capitulation at this point.

AP is an investment firm. Clinton's foundation is a foundation.. two different legal entities. Jared kishner worked extensively with SA during the first term. He brokered the Abrahamic accord. It's pretty reasonable SA would prefer to work with him over an unknown suit at JP.

Obviously Jared leveraged his past experience and relationships to secure the deal. But who doesn't? That's not inherently wrong like some are claiming.

What does JPM have to do with any of this? JPM is an investment bank, and AP is a buy side PE firm. Pretty important distinction.

Letting the President's SIL have a few points in the company is like pathetic mafia stuff.

You need a broker. Like one poster mention JP could have been it. But again how does Jared being involved in anyway cronyism? Is Jared not allowed to do any business or own anything the rest of his life?

Now if you or anyone can show SA is improperly leveraging Jared's involvement for some sort of political favor then I would agree with you and be opposed to it. Which is why I asked for evidence of impropriety but so far it's just seething posters and zero evidence.

He's not a damn broker. He's the CEO (also hilarious) of a PE firm.

Do you mean as in the colloquial term he "brokered" the deal, as in helped make it happen? If so, that's also hilarious. PE is about expertise, network with other PE funds, and most importantly, the ability raise large (and recurrently profitable) funds for investment. AP does not swim in these waters with Silver Lake, Thoma Bravo, KKR, etc. Like comparing a cowboy pool to Lake Michigan.

This is realistically scratching one another's back for further business together, including with the President.

PE gets equity all the time at a discount or for services. That's not abnormal. You sound bitter. Should be easy to show where the impropriety is.

I'm only bitter about this back and forth. You don't even know the difference between broker, I bank, and PE firm. The impropriety is staring at you, point blank.

We used to raise hell about former politicians getting jobs on K Street, lucrative book deals, and speaking fees. Now we have a former appointed official (and still the President's SIL), getting points in the largest LBO ever, funded primarily with the same country he worked with, and it's a big ol' nothing burger.

I understand the differences. You're just trying to be insulting to push your point. I didn't originally bring up JP. Another poster did, I was responding to his post. And obviously Jared's PE firm is providing services ie brokering the deal and is getting a piece of the pie. PE firms provide services for equity. This is not abnormal.

He had a very strong relationship with SA. Is that the sin? Is the sin SA is working through Jared who they know? Is buying the company the sin?

In your examples of previous things we considered improper it depends on where the money comes from.

I'm not saying there is no corruption here. I'm asking for those saying it's corrupt to highlight it. So far all I've gotten back is insults and whataboutisms.

You don't know the difference, and that's not a huge deal. His inclusion at all is the problem. See, for something to be arm's length, there needs to a be a rationale and exchange that makes sense. SA didn't need Jared to get to Silver Lake, or any other PE firm, they didn't need him because of extensive LBO financing experience, industry vertical knowledge, takeover knowledge, I would argue gaming won't even get heavily scrutinized regulatory wise (especially since they have been active in gaming already). So they included his two-bit firm, and he will get tens of millions of dollars for what exactly? The burden isn't on us to provide proof, the burden is on him, a former appointed official and relative to the President, to state how this isn't nefarious. But, he won't, because they know they can do this type of stuff straight up, in the open, because most of their supporters somehow and inexplicably consider it fine.

Anyone with any sort of impartiality can see that this is nothing more than scratching one another's back for prior and future dealings. If he was included for regulatory concerns, that is absolutely cronyism, and would make the most sense on how he could provide any sort of real-life value.

It does make sense his firm was used if it helped some ownership percent regulation etc. which happens so much. There are a lot of "US" companies back end invested by China. It's a problem with the regulations to allow the loop hole. He's obviously leveraging his extensive relationship with SA. But to make the comment it's corruption on Trump you do have the burden to Show it. And so far no one has.

For example with Biden and his son. Biden was getting kickbacks directly from his sons position.

Silver Lake will be a much higher percentage of ownership (also US). That makes no sense as a reply or counter.

Might still need more than silver lake has. And it's very likey Jared helped broker the deal. He did a lot of deals prior to Trump winning the first term. And his relationship with SA is undeniable. Maybe there's funny business going on. But to jsut say it's corruption by Trump without any evidence is silly. You're assuming it's corrupt because Jared is involved and don't know what role he was involved. To each their own.

nm....not a helpful contribution

Yes, indeed. To each their own willful ignorance.

the most likely scenario is that the Saudi's knew that they would need approval from the (CFIUS) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and smartly realized that having the President's SIL attached to the deal would make that a much easier process.

I know for a fact China is trying to break into the US electric car market. They are using back door PE firms as shell companies to have minority stakes in other US companies. They can do this due to the regulations requiring a certain percent of ownership to be US based. But it doesn't bar foreign investments under a certain amount via these shell companies. So US people get paid by China to prop up "US" companies as the majority holder but China gets access to the US markets.

I assume silver lake and Jared are providing a similiar benefit to SA. Jared's firm being chosen because 1 they know Jared personally and 2 they're invested in him.

Does that mean Trump is involved in corruption?

100% agreed

If that is shown to be true and an improper approval was granted due to the relationship I would agree with you. However as of today it's just hypothetical projection.

it's not about proper or improper approval in these deals, it's about greasing the skids.

It looks like the purchasing consortium would have to pay a billion dollar termination fee if they can't get approval. Seems like having Jared's ragtag group involved is a nice insurance policy.

Absolutely wild that you are talking like Silver Lake and Affinity Partners offer the same capital, experience, and expertise. It's so incredibly wrong.

One is a firm. One is a few entity docs with compliance guys.

If things get approved based on Jared being SIL I would say that's not ok. If Jared from his business acumen and connections help get approval then it is like I originally stated. A PE firm providing a service for equity. Jared was making all kinds of real estate deals in NYC prior to Trump ever running. It's not like Jared is some bum.

Personally I don't like the guy but that's not on topic. The original claimant some posters was Trump is owned by SA and corrupted. I just don't see any evidence for that in this deal to date. Maybe something materializes in the future.

I'm not saying they are similiar. I'm saying they are different. Like the China example. Jared's firm seems to be similar to how China sets up front companies but instead of China it's SA.

This is not a good faith conversation, so I'll see myself out!

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If things get approved based on Jared being SIL I would say that's not ok. If Jared from his business acumen and connections help get approval then it is like I originally stated. A PE firm providing a service for equity. Jared was making all kinds of real estate deals in NYC prior to Trump ever running. It's not like Jared is some bum.

Personally I don't like the guy but that's not on topic. The original claimant some posters was Trump is owned by SA and corrupted. I just don't see any evidence for that in this deal to date. Maybe something materializes in the future.

---

do you think they're going to come out and state that this was the reason? It's just a cheap way to help ensure the deal gets done.

I don't think Jared is an idiot, but he had basically zero experience in the PE world before the Middle Eastern Trio gave him $3B to invest. He's become quite adept at peddling his influence.

Read about the controversies involving him trying to raise foreign debt to bail out the families disastrous real estate investment at 666 Fifth Ave. You'll notice a lot of the same players were involved.

Gaslight says what?

Where's my insult. That you don't know the difference between broker, I bank, and PE firm? I stand on that, and I'm correct. You called me bitter in a pithy little passive aggressive way.

I agree Jared seems pretty scummy. I've never liked the guy and was glad he didn't join the second admin. Definitely potential for improper activities. All I've maintained is seeing the evidence of it and more specifically Trumps involvement. Which Trump being owned by SA was the original corruption claim in this thread. I'm not being dogmatic Jared is some clean cut guy. I would just like to see what specificity pertaining to this deal is an issue.

Another weird complexity or curiosity I have is why is SA so concerned with buying video game studios.

Look man. You seem to be the one not arguing in good faith. I didn't bring up the bank comparison. One poster said why wasn't JP used instead of Jared. And o said maybe because they know Jared and he helped broker the deal. And you got all up in arms with me about not knowing the difference between a PE firm, a broker and bank. I'm saying Jared, a PE firm, probably helped broker the deal isn't some impossibility because the has a PE firm and it's not a brokerage firm. There has to be people who help bridge the gap in any deal. And likely Jared was involved.

We actually agree on the last points we discussed but you some how missed that in your eagerness to show I was wrong or something.

And, I'll reiterate. The idea that Jared brokered anything between a major US company, SA PIF, and Silver Lake is immediately stoopid. If you think that's remotely plausible, it's true delusion.

He brokered the Abrahamic peace accord or whatever they called in during the first term. I guess I'm an idiot to think he helped SA broker another far less complex deal.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I agree Jared seems pretty scummy. I've never liked the guy and was glad he didn't join the second admin. Definitely potential for improper activities. All I've maintained is seeing the evidence of it and more specifically Trumps involvement. Which Trump being owned by SA was the original corruption claim in this thread. I'm not being dogmatic Jared is some clean cut guy. I would just like to see what specificity pertaining to this deal is an issue.

Another weird complexity or curiosity I have is why is SA so concerned with buying video game studios.

---

He doesn't have an official role this time around, but he's still very much involved