Jared Kushner: I Can Explain
Making the rounds promoting his new memoir, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald J. Trump, this week ran into the question he has managed for months to avoid commenting on publicly: Did he agree with Mr. Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen?
“I think that there’s different words,” Mr. Kushner told the talk show host Megyn Kelly during a friendly interview on SiriusXM. He added, “I think there’s a whole bunch of different approaches that different people have taken, and different theories.” — The New York Times, Aug. 27, 2022
Ever since I left office, published my book, and began my world tour, people have been inquiring relentlessly about my father-in-law. Did he — quote unquote — lose the election in 2020? Was he in any way involved in what happened with those tourists at the Capitol asserting their touristic rights? Did he strong-arm that Ukrainian fellow?
The answer is a resounding Nyes! Or, put another way, Yno! Allow me to explain, as I do in my book, which can be purchased online, in bookstores, and in other fine establishments throughout the U.S. and Israel and now — thanks to Yours Truly — Saudi Arabia! “Who’da thunk it,” as you-know-who might say at a campaign rally for his base. (Interesting fact: the Saudi word for base is “Al-Qaeda.”)
But I digress. You were asking about President Trump. I got confused because you said “Former President Trump,” so I wasn’t sure exactly which person you were talking about. As you may know, Faulkner famously wrote that “the past isn’t over, it isn’t even past. That is why — even though I haven’t read Faulkner and only found this out last week — I agree with him.
The whole present/former issue becomes even more confusing because “former” usually refers to a person who forms things, such as the Abraham Accords — not that I necessarily want to draw attention here to my signature achievement while in office. But if you chose to call me Former Jared Kushner because of it, I’d be hard-pressed to protest. See what I mean?
Which brings me to the 2020 elections and the questions of winning, losing, tying, and so forth. As we all know, there was an enormous amount of talk about irregularities in the voting process, especially in the Oval Office. Honestly, I could hardly hear myself think.
But this wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I can only dream about there being that much talk about my book. Can you imagine? It would probably become the biggest selling book in history outside of maybe The Bible, The Art of the Deal, or The Holy Koran. So I think over-talking needs to be seen from both sides.
Still, I thought it best that I stay above the fray in order to provide my “outsider’s” point of view, as I did with the above-mentioned and under-appreciated Abraham Accords. And I’ve always thought that the best way to take the 30,000 foot view of an issue is to get into an airplane and look out the window. Which I did. Unfortunately, all I saw were a bunch of little dots and what looked like soybean fields in Virginia.
But then I figured that while I’m up here, I should probably look for some investors in my post-office ventures in case, you know, the next administration didn’t include me. Whichever administration that turned out to be. Or not to be. That is the question. Whether tis nobler to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or be smart and reach out to investors with outrageous fortunes, like MBS. I know he’s got a terrible reputation in certain quarters, but I assure you, he’s been exceedingly nice to me and my family, and that should count for something.
Which leads me to January 6th, 2021 and the participants therein and thereabouts. My father-in-law did warn that it would be “wild” that day, and whatever you may think of him, you have to admit the guy’s got a decent crystal ball. I looked back at that date in my Special Advisor calendar and all I had scheduled was a haircut, dinner with Ivanka at Le Diplomate, and some creative writing I’d scheduled for just before bedtime. Hardly my idea of a wild day.
People have been asking me about my father-in-law’s conduct that afternoon and why I wasn’t more forceful in getting him to tell the participants to go home. Well, as you’ll see in my book, and as I will exclusively reveal right here free of charge, I was extremely forceful about it.
He was eating and watching the whole thing on TV in the private dining area and so was I. When we saw those barriers get knocked over I said to him, “Pass me those fucking French fries now!” Believe me, I rarely curse, but I was outraged at what was taking place. That guy with the horns on his hat? Ivanka and I once went on safari and saw a gnu get gored by a cape buffalo, and believe me, it was gruesome!
In any event, if you’ve ever eaten with my father-in-law you’ll know that he is exceedingly proprietary about his food. I can’t count the number of times I’ve asked for a taste of his meal or offered him a taste of mine and every time it’s been: “No, no, Jared. Fuck no!” Which is why I thought I had to meet him at his level in terms of using bad words to make my point about the need for something to happen and happen right then. I could have said, “you need to call this off now by saying something to your base,” but as with the undervalued Abraham Accords, a subtler approach is often required with certain individuals. And while it did take a few hours to sink in, eventually the President did connect the French Fry-sharing request to its proper intent and asked everyone to go home peacefully. So there you have it.
The last issue I’d like to shed light on prior to your purchase of my memoir is the phone call to Ukraine and the military funds that were allegedly withheld from President Zelensky. My father-in-law referred to it as a “perfect” phone call, but as you’ll see when you buy my book, it was hardly perfect.
First, the connection was subpar at best, which is why I’d suggested it be done in the modern and acoustically superior way: over Skype. I’d also advised the person who rejected that audio advice that asking for a “favor” might not be the best approach, as it implied a certain tit for tat, as in “do me a favor and I’ll reciprocate by releasing the 40 million dollars you need.” Had he instead used the words “good turn,” as I’d suggested, well, that would have been a perfect phone call. “Do me a good turn and investigate Hunter Biden and I’ll do you a good turn and release the money.” Exchanging good turns is not only a respected hallmark of international diplomacy, it practically gushes goodwill. I found it particularly effective when negotiating the Abraham Accords. I told MBS, “Do me a good turn and make this deal with Israel. And he said, “Do me a good turn and say something nice about me in your book’s acknowledgments.”
The rest, as they say, is history, or as the title of my book informs us, “Breaking History.” You may wonder: “Does he mean breaking as in rupturing, or breaking as in ‘breaking news story?’”
The answer is it’s all relative. Unless you’re a relative, in which case: Nyes! (aka Yno!)
