In 2009, as the world was going through a recession, Russian social-media mogul Yuri Milner invested $200m in Facebook, with a valuation of $10b, without requesting a seat on the board or voting rights.

The investment was financed by Alisher B. Usmanov, who provided funds from Gazprom, a Russian natural gas-and-more conglomerate. It’s likely the investment is what pushed out Facebook’s early CFO Gideon Yu.

The investments were facilitated by Ryan Williams, a friend and former classmate of Jared Kushner. At a similar time, Yuri Milner also invested in Cadre, a company founded by Williams, Kushner, and Kushner’s brother, Josh Kushner. However, Jared Kushner failed to disclose his ownership of the company.

Shortly after, Milner & Zuckerberg became close associates, meeting monthly, even speaking together at events. In 2012, Milner attended Zuckerberg’s wedding, and in 2014, paid 100% above value for a home in California.


Alisher B. Usmanov spent 6 years (1980-1986) in a Soviet prison for fraud and embezzlement, before becoming a manager of Gazprom-owned steel mills. In 2008/2009, he fired the editor at one of Russia’s most-respected newspapers for an article detailing Russian electoral fraud. The article said, “[Usmanov’s] ties to the Kremlin and Facebook have stirred concerns that he might influence the company’s policies in subtle ways to appease governments in markets where Facebook is also an important tool of political dissent, such as Russia.”

Usmanov is known to be a close friend of Roman Abramovich, whose wife during this period was in turn close friends with Ivanka Trump, thanks to Wendi Deng. This led to Ivanka attending a lunch hosted by Lev Leviev, an associate of Abramovich’s, where Deng introduced her to Jared Kushner. (Concurrently, Leviev was hosting the bris for the grandson of Tamir Sapir, who’s daughter Zina Sapir married Africa-Israel CEO Roten Rosen. Trump, a few months earlier,, had hosted the wedding of Sapir and Rosen.

The Sapir Organization, with the Trump Organization, built Trump SoHo. (Which was an absolute scandalous mess, not going to get into that here.) They attempted to mimic the process with Trump Tower Moscow, as well.


Gazprom – the conglomerate which both Abramovich and Usmanov have been senior executive at, and which provided the funds for Milner’s investment in Facebook – may be familiar to you because of their recent mentions in the news. They are the financiers of the spy ring which, in 2013, tried to recruit Trump advisor Carter Page.


When Facebook was first confronted about the “fake news” epidemic and its influence on our election, Zuckerberg said it was “crazy.” In April 2017 when they put out a report on the issue, they left out any mention of Russia.

Political ads were paid for in rubles. Facebook had “embeds” working directly with the Trump campaign.

“[People from Facebook, Google, and YouTube] were helping us… they were basically our hands-on partners… …Without Facebook, we wouldn’t have won.” – Theresa Wong, Trump campaign.

“We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff.” – Jaren Kushner.

Cambridge Analytica is the firm who coordinated with Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s stolen emails. Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was an advisor at Cambridge Analytica.


Facebook has early investment ties to Russian financiers and openly worked with them for years. The Trump family has ties to those same people. Facebook then worked directly with the Trump family to implement the methodology of those people.

It was not an accidental failure of a novel invention.

In your letter, you commended Sanders for working with the Democrat party, rather than running independently. I would like to highlight how that is perceived by Democrats: this is based on my personal conversations with people in the party, from aides in the House to local treasurers:

Imagine I came into your office and was like “Oh, wow, y’all are doing [software development] all wrong!” and then tried to convince you to do it my way. You don’t agree, so I start badmouthing your company to the press. That doesn’t work, so I start badmouthing YOU. That doesn’t work, so I start threatening you – run your private company the way I, an outsider, say, or I will go invest in your competitors, THAT’LL show you.

While not true of all of his supporters, in many ways its like they showed up two days before the product release and went NO DO IT MY WAY OR NO WAY. They’re willing to give the election to Trump rather than support Democrats – but want us to give them the same respect we would long-term members of the party. They’re willing to harass employees – but want us to treat them as though they’re simply trying to make sure we hear them.

Honestly, it seems absurd to me that anyone who still is a die-hard Berner thinks they should be treated with kindness. They’ve made it clear that they would rather hand the country to the GOP than vote Clinton. And I can kind of understand that – the Breaking Bad mentality of no half-measures. But it’s gone beyond that. You have Berners, prominent ones, who are loudly disagreeing with Bernie about his own platform.

It’s gotten to the point where even if Bernie says “I’ll support Clinton if she gets the nomination,” they’ll still write his name in. It’s childish, short-sighted, and yet comes to the table under the impression that they have just as valid a say as the people who have been at the table for years. I could keep incoherently ranting about how silly the entire thing is, but it isn’t voters like you I have a problem with.

You saw an opportunity to reform the Dems, see that it might fail, and so will take your reformation efforts to the next most likely buyer. That’s smart. That’s political. It’s respectable.

Saying that you’ll kick over the table and throw the gameboard in the fire isn’t.

In your original letter, you stated:

I keep hearing that Bernie can still win, and that he’s the only one who can beat Trump in a general election. What’s your take on that?

Bernie’s “lead” in the general comes only from the movement, which based on demographics aren’t incredibly likely to vote in the general anyway.

Your argument for why your candidate is more likely to win is because your candidate has supporters who would throw the election to Trump if he doesn’t get the nomination.

That’s like me saying “Jonathan, I want you to decide whether we’re having fish or steak for dinner – but if you pick steak, I’m going to force you to eat gravel instead.” It might get you to pick steak, or you may stick with your choice of fish and see if you’re really the sort of person who will force folks to eat gravel – and if you are, well, I’m sure glad I didn’t pick you to make my dinner.

Regarding his tendency to poll better against Republicans than Clinton… that’s true, but if you account for the amount of press coverage toward each, and past elections and how press there has worked, it seems as though Sander’s strength comes from the fact he hasn’t been attacked by Republicans yet.

Further complicating things, the Right’s internal math says Clinton is more likely to win – and has their own movement that says they’ll vote for clinton over trump (not sanders though.)

So you’ve got Sanders predicted to win by some democrats, but only because he hasn’t been slammed by republicans AND because his supporters are willing to throw the election if he doesn’t get the nomination, and Clinton predicted to win by most democrats and most republicans, and there’s no more dirt to throw on her – the odds there’s some hidden scandal around her is real slim, while from a moderate/independent perspective, the amount of untouched scandal around Sanders is absurd.

On top of all of that, you’re saying that Sanders will wait to pitch superdelegates until the convention is closer, which may be true for him and his campaign… but isn’t true for many of his supporters. I’m, as you may know, tight with lots of political folk on both side of the aisle – I actually had dinner with an ex officio delegate a few nights ago, and he’s actually disconnected his home phone because of the steady stream of threats he gets to vote for Sanders. Same for the other delegates I know in this state (bar one, who’s known for being more to the left.)

So you’re counting on Sanders’ campaign being able to go up to people who have been harassed for months and going “If you don’t vote for me, the harassment won’t stop, and we’ll let Republicans take control of the country.”

And do you know what tends not to work very well on public officials? Vaguely threatening coercion when it’s happening under incredible public scrutiny.

Put simply, the only strength Sanders can put forward to secure the nomination is the ability of his supporters to rally together and threaten low-level public officials.

You’re relying on people who, at this point, personally dislike him for what they have done to the party they have worked to grow and strengthen for years, if not decades, to suddenly cave into the same threats they’ve been hearing for months now. It’s not going to happen.