When it comes to that kind of potential leak to US security, that's pennies.
What happens if Deutsche Bank doesn't fully comply? What jurisdiction do we have or means to prove they are fully complying? And why is a Russian bank called Deutsche Bank, anyway? Are they also going to go after Alfa? So many questions.
When it comes to that kind of potential leak to US security, that's pennies.
What happens if Deutsche Bank doesn't fully comply? What jurisdiction do we have or means to prove they are fully complying? And why is a Russian bank called Deutsche Bank, anyway? Are they also going to go after Alfa? So many questions.
It's not a Russian bank. It's a German ("Deutsche") bank, though it operates pretty much worldwide.
If they didn't comply with the subpoena then Mueller could move in court to hold the bank in contempt, and the court would be free to impose a variety of punishments on Deutsche Bank. It's also plausible that U.S. authorities could work with German counterparts to put the hurt on the bank, although I'm not sure whether Mueller could control that stuff. But regardless, Deutsche Bank is going to comply with the subpoena.
El Guapo wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:37 pm
It's not a Russian bank. It's a German ("Deutsche") bank, though it operates pretty much worldwide.
That's what I had thought coming in to today. Some of my reading seems to have confused me. It mush just be all the Russian interests and money laundering related to the bank I'm coming away with.
I feel a bit better or I would if I didn't just google "russian deutsche bank" and see the history of this bank's legal entanglements over the last decade as related to Russia.
Yeah, 7 million seems like a drop in the bucket for an investigation of this size, importance and delicacy.
What was the running total for just the Benghazi hearings? Over 7 million there, and even if you don't believe it was a trumped up, poorly disguised partisan hack job, that's a lot of money to spend on investigating the deaths of 4 people. This is particularly vexing when you realize they retread the same territory multiple times only to arrive at the same place each time.
Investigating Drumpf should not be viewed as a partisan investigation, because it absolutely is not. The very foundations of your democracy are at stake here. That so freakin' many republicans are willing to hold their noses and try to make it into your standard partisan politics is sickening.
As I've said before, Drumpf is not a conservative, nor is he a republican. He's not loyal to anyone. Why anyone would be loyal to him outside of paycheques is beyond me. It's ok that my guy is a cancer on democracy, because he's not your guy is a crazy way to base your vote on.
He does really hate Obama though. So if you're from Alabama (so I'm told), I guess you've got that going for you.
It will make this all the more delicious when she's called out for being the lying liar she is. But of course I'm sure she'll tell us all she never said that or that based on the facts at the time she was being completely truthful or some other nonsense.
Ok, we're entering twilight zone here. Not only has the information been leaked from the Mueller side of things, the bank has CONFIRMED IT.
edit: My bad. I thought I had read that. I issue a retraction and apologize. See how easy that is, Fox News?
Here's hoping this means he's starting to crack under the pressure. I hope this is keeping him awake at night.
The beauty of all this is that the pressure while under investigation must be immense, but your ability to fret or even focus on it must be seriously hampered by having the busiest, most responsibility heavy job in the world.
If he's not curled up in a corner with his thumb in his mouth by the end of this, I'll be a monkey's uncle (family history I don't want to talk about).
Last edited by GreenGoo on Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GreenGoo wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:52 pm
The beauty of all this is that the pressure while under investigation must be immense, but your ability to fret or even focus on it must be seriously hampered by having the busiest, most responsibility heavy job in the world.
Trump's burden is cushioned by the fact that he watches TV all morning, golfs whenever he can, and insists on one-page briefings. It's clear from the leaks and outside evidence that no one really requires him to do anything.
We're doing an experiment in the president simply not doing the job except where it personally aggrandizes him.
GreenGoo wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:52 pm
The beauty of all this is that the pressure while under investigation must be immense, but your ability to fret or even focus on it must be seriously hampered by having the busiest, most responsibility heavy job in the world.
Trump's burden is cushioned by the fact that he watches TV all morning, golfs whenever he can, and insists on one-page briefings. It's clear from the leaks and outside evidence that no one really requires him to do anything.
We're doing an experiment in the president simply not doing the job except where it personally aggrandizes him.
Oh, I fully agree. He's not doing a tenth of what the job requires. I also believe the little bit he participates in is far beyond his abilities and he is constantly in a sea of confusion and anxiety about not understanding what people are discussing, which is one of the reasons we keep hearing him bluster and remind us how awesome he is. He certainly isn't capable of showing us how awesome he is.
I think just being in the job, even if you're doing nothing, would cause most people to be really stressed. The idea that the reality that Drumpf sucks is pushing so hard against Drumpf's image of himself has got to be creating some fractures in his psyche. I'm desperately hoping, anyway.
Max Peck wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:54 pm
The White House is denying that Mueller subpoenaed bank records specifically relating to Trump, not that he subpoenaed bank records at all.
What's interesting is that earlier in the year Trump (July) Trump specifically warned Mueller to not look into his family's finances. And now we have Mueller saying he did and the White House denying it happened. It's almost like...Trump wants to make sure no one thinks his family's finances are under review because it would raise some questions about his dealings. Like maybe people or groups he's had shady dealings with.
Max Peck wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:54 pm
The White House is denying that Mueller subpoenaed bank records specifically relating to Trump, not that he subpoenaed bank records at all.
What's interesting is that earlier in the year Trump (July) Trump specifically warned Mueller to not look into his family's finances. And now we have Mueller saying he did and the White House denying it happened. It's almost like...Trump wants to make sure no one thinks his family's finances are under review because it would raise some questions about his dealings. Like maybe people or groups he's had shady dealings with.
Nah, I'm sure it's nothing.
Mueller's been looking into Trump's finances since *well* before this. Mueller crossed that red line within a week of Trump saying that in July.
I don't have any serious issues with the article except the suggestion that the Mueller investigation is extremely leaky. I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from.
Also, while he lays out the facts pretty well, his conclusions aren't the only ones that fit the facts, nor in some cases even the most likely ones.
So what we have is one person's opinion on what the facts mean. Great. Lots of people have lots of opinions. See you at the end of the investigation.
Oh, one last thing. Why did you post a link to an article with no context?
El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:12 am
Mueller's been looking into Trump's finances since *well* before this. Mueller crossed that red line within a week of Trump saying that in July.
Mueller probably crossed that line the instant that Trump said it. "Sure, officer, you can search my car, just not under the seat."
GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:09 am
I don't have any serious issues with the article except the suggestion that the Mueller investigation is extremely leaky. I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from.
Also, while he lays out the facts pretty well, his conclusions aren't the only ones that fit the facts, nor in some cases even the most likely ones.
So what we have is one person's opinion on what the facts mean. Great. Lots of people have lots of opinions. See you at the end of the investigation.
Oh, one last thing. Why did you post a link to an article with no context?
The thread is the context. It is a thread about the Trump investigation and that is an article about it. Though I will acknowledge the conversation has drifted about as far off topic as one can imagine. Perhaps we need a random drive by Trump bashing thread to absorb some more of the stuff not related to the investigation?
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”
— Benjamin Rush --
Rip wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:43 am
Perhaps we need a random drive by Trump bashing thread to absorb some more of the stuff not related to the investigation?
BENGHAZI! EMAILS!
<every time you complain about Trump bashing, I just hear that in my head and think about how much of a hypocrite you're being>
WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business associate that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as one of the Trump administration’s first acts, according to an account by a whistle-blower made public on Wednesday.
Mr. Flynn believed that ending the sanctions could allow a business project he had once participated in to move forward, according to the whistle-blower. The account is the strongest evidence to date that the Trump administration wanted to end the sanctions immediately, and suggests that Mr. Flynn had a possible economic incentive for the United States to forge a closer relationship with Russia.
Mr. Flynn had worked on a business venture to partner with Russia to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East until June 2016, but remained close with the people involved afterward. On Inauguration Day, according to the whistle-blower, Mr. Flynn texted the former business associate to say that the project was “good to go.”
The account is detailed in a letter written by Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. In the letter, Mr. Cummings said that the whistle-blower contacted his office in June and has authorized him to go public with the details. He did not name the whistle-blower.
How disappointing. So Trump and co. are selling us out for 'only' garden variety corruption possibly. I will still hold out hope for the pee tape and the grand money laundering conspiracy. That'd at least be an interesting reason to do this to the nation.
To Rip's credit, he posted an article that admits that Russia meddled in the election and that the Trump campaign tried to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. Baby steps!
