Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner refused to sign memo saying Trump was not antisemitic, book says
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner refused to sign memo saying Trump was not antisemitic, book says
Pair declined to give public endorsement of Trump in wake of 7 October attacks, All or Nothing by Michael Wolff reveals
Summary
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner refused to sign a statement saying Donald Trump was not antisemitic, according to Michael Wolff’s new book “All or Nothing.”
The couple previously served as senior advisers but distanced themselves after the January 6 attack.
Wolff claims Trump sought their “Jewish cover” following his ambiguous stance on Israel post-October 7 Hamas attacks.
Kushner dodged repeated requests for a formal endorsement, eventually declining to label Trump as non-antisemitic.
You're viewing a single thread.
(negative)n in title, i'm lost again.
Let's disentangle this mess :
Statement "A" :
Trump ≠ (anti-semitic = Hate_Jews™)
//
(( Ivanka Trump + Jared Kushner →
Trump's relatives )) . (refused to sign ≈ deny ) . ("A")
→
Trump's relatives (deny he does not) hate Jews //(in memo that is in book)
→.
≈ Trump's relatives : "He hates Jews".This is spot on. Is this a skill that can be taught
i don't know. Maybe this is what happens when reading English through a French mind.
Same structure as in french, no? Ils refusent de signer un mémo qui dit que trump n'est pas antisémite.
en français :
D'accord peut-être que la structure est la même ... mais étant donné que j'ai de la difficulté à comprendre l'anglais, souvent je dois décomposer les phrases et les recomposer ... c'est ce que j'ai dû faire dans le présent cas.
.
inN enngrishh :
Well ok maybe, but but but ... i struggle understanding English since i was born french ... so sometimes i have to, (like this once), decompose and recompose sentences to get ze meaning.
This is a useful comment for those who part computer.
Once again i struggle understanding a simple English sentence. please help me :
(...) who part computer.
1st interpretation would be written differently for me ... i would write it like :
"for those who are part human, part computer" so i would have to reject that one.2nd interpretation would be reading "part" as a verb ... like dividing something into parts. So : "taking a computer into many pieces"
Since I'm not sure how this second interpretation works, i start doubting my capacity and believe there might be a third interpretation ...
It's just a missing word, it should say 'who are part computer'. Most likely a typo
Oh ! ... i get it thanks. Very surprised, i am though that so many users are contributing to such an old and insignificant tread ...