Trump's Deutsche Bank Records Said to Be Subpoenaed by Mueller

[Mayhem]

Hum, I wonder who's Alt account that was to get banned that fast.

Tijuana is in mexico, just saying. ^^

[Heladys]

But so does everything with multiple syllables.

Untrue! Unfair! Fake News! He loves Pee-pee.

[Thekri]

I think Mueller's going to go digging everywhere there could be wrongdoing of any kind. While this entire investigation was predicated on Russian collusion theories, they're really just looking for any kind of malfeasance. It's a wholesale investigation using "Russian Collusion" as a vehicle.

Well, he has established the communication existed at this point, now he has to prove motive. In the case of most of these guys, the motive is cash. Russia doesn't write checks with their name on the check, they launder it through banks. This bank in particular was tied to laundering billions for Russia, and recently, it also has massive loans to Donald Trump on the books. That doesn't seem like a significant stretch to me, and that is just with the information that is publicly available. Mueller has a lot more information then we do.

"Collusion" isn't an actually crime, Conspiracy is. Mueller needs to know how deep this rabbit hole goes, how far back do the contacts go, what is behind it. The Conspiracy case won't rest on one incriminating meeting, Mueller needs to paint a very broad and convincing picture, he needs those financial records.

[Stormspark]

I'm surprised getting all of his bank records wasn't the day 1 agenda.

Yeah, we know that Trump has been laundering money for a long time. If WE know that, certainly Mueller does. He just has to prove it.

One thing to keep in mind. Trump is a low guy on the totem pole here. He's a glorified figurehead, put in place because people thought he would be easy to control and manipulate. Turns out he's acutally too dumb to maniuplate completely because he's too dumb to shut up and do as he's told (like GW Bush did). Taking down Trump will be a good thing of course, but we need to take down the entire structure that made him possible, that's why Mueller isn't moving directly against him yet. Stepping on a cockroach you see out in the open is one thing, finding the nest and hitting it with Raid is another.

[Breccia]

Yeah, we know that Trump has been laundering money for a long time. If WE know that, certainly Mueller does. He just has to prove it.

And, of course, there's two other issues worth mentioning.
a) RICO
b) New York State

Deutsche Bank has already had significant legal only-a-setbacks in NYS. It is possible, I honestly have no idea how likely but possible, to argue that Trump and Deustche Bank conspired to assist with Russian money laundering, by virtue of, say, Trump taking a Deustche Bank money laundered Russian loan, then selling a Russian overpriced property they never used.

And, if that charge comes at the state level, Trump can't do a thing about it. But you know who can? Bharara. Or, as I'm sure he's pronouncing it. BWHAHAHAHA!

[Shadowmelded]

I think Mueller's going to go digging everywhere there could be wrongdoing of any kind. While this entire investigation was predicated on Russian collusion theories, they're really just looking for any kind of malfeasance. It's a wholesale investigation using "Russian Collusion" as a vehicle.

Seems a bit of a stretch to try and make this look like Starr's investigation.

[mvaliz]

I think Mueller's going to go digging everywhere there could be wrongdoing of any kind. While this entire investigation was predicated on Russian collusion theories, they're really just looking for any kind of malfeasance. It's a wholesale investigation using "Russian Collusion" as a vehicle.

1) You do realize that criminal investigations often reveal other criminal activities that tie into said criminal activity, right?

2) If there's "Russian Collusion" - there should be a reason for said collusion, right? It might shock you, but most reasons for crime tend to turn out to be promises of payments of money.

Why do you think they got Flynn on charges like kidnapping? (I still want to know WTF that one was all about! o_O)

[Breccia]

(I still want to know WTF that one was all about! o_O)

I assume you're talking about the Gulen thing, specifically, how Turkey wanted to pay Flynn millions of dollars to get Erdogan's political opponent out of the USA where he could catch and, one would assume, imprison or execute him. Here's a quick timeline:

Flynn and Turkey

Aug. 9, 2016: Flynn Intel Group signs a contract with Inovo BV, a business run by a confidant of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Federal law mandates that he register as an agent of a foreign government if he lobbies on behalf of Turkey. Flynn doesn’t do so.

Sep. 19: Former CIA director James Woolsey attends a meeting with Flynn in which Flynn makes reference to kidnapping Fethullah Gulen — an Erdogan opponent who lives in Pennsylvania — and returning him to Turkey.

Nov. 8: Flynn’s piece criticizing Gulen appears in The Hill. Gulen is described as “a shady Islamic mullah.”

Nov. 30: Flynn is informed he’s under investigation for his unreported lobbying.

Mid-December: At a dinner in New York, Flynn reportedly again raises the idea of kidnapping Gulen — allegedly also suggesting that he might receive $15 million for his help in making it happen.

Jan. 4, 2017: Flynn tells McGahn about the Justice Department investigation and that he may need to register as a foreign agent.

Jan. 22: Flynn begins work as national security adviser.

Feb. 11: Flynn belatedly files a financial disclosure form that excludes several foreign payments.

Feb. 13: Flynn resigns.

As I've posted before, most people who knew Flynn felt this was a pretty strange turn of events for him to post such OP EDs like that. Of course, for $15 million, maybe I would have done the same. Difference is, I'm some nameless nobody. Flynn was about to be NSA. Also, I wouldn't lie to the FBI or on any other federal form about it, because that shit's illegal.

[Deluded]

More fake news, no subpoena was issued. More premature evaluation. Pretty funny to watch the Trump haters lose on a daily basis....hahahaha

[NYC17]

More fake news, no subpoena was issued. More premature evaluation. Pretty funny to watch the Trump haters lose on a daily basis....hahahaha

When Sukelow is your source you should probably hold off on the condescending laughter. Unless of course you're laughing at your own stupidity. That level of self awareness would seem to be beyond you though...

[Breccia]

WH denies subpoenas into Trump's accounts.

Shame her word means nothing. There was a time when an official WH denial had weight.

[Machismo]

More fake news, no subpoena was issued. More premature evaluation. Pretty funny to watch the Trump haters lose on a daily basis....hahahaha

Is this another of the alt accounts from a triggered poster who got banned? Sad...

[NYC17]

WH denies subpoenas into Trump's accounts.

Shame her word means nothing. There was a time when an official WH denial had weight.

Since it comes from Jay Sukelow it weighs far less than Sanders'.

[Tinykong]

I wonder how long it will be before Trump tries to pardon himself.

[Breccia]

Since it comes from Jay Sukelow it weighs far less than Sanders'.

Sanders also denied it. Again, that means next to nothing.

EDIT: Incidentally, it is possible that Sanders is telling the truth -- that they asked the bank, and the bank said no -- and the bank was lying to them. I mean, let's not pretend Deutsche Bank is a paragon of virtue, here, and I doubt they want to broadcast "hey everyone, we're being raided by the FBI, thought you'd want to know". Do you know what happens when people think a bank is in trouble? Didn't you ever see Sneakers? Why the hell not?

[Thepersona]

More fake news, no subpoena was issued. More premature evaluation. Pretty funny to watch the Trump haters lose on a daily basis....hahahaha

And who's alt account is this?
I'm banking on one who starts with an R, or a O

[ohiostate124]

Sanders also denied it. Again, that means next to nothing.

EDIT: Incidentally, it is possible that Sanders is telling the truth -- that they asked the bank, and the bank said no -- and the bank was lying to them. I mean, let's not pretend Deutsche Bank is a paragon of virtue, here, and I doubt they want to broadcast "hey everyone, we're being raided by the FBI, thought you'd want to know". Do you know what happens when people think a bank is in trouble? Didn't you ever see Sneakers? Why the hell not?

Sure but it’s also possible that the story is wrong. Just like the Brian Ross stuff.

[NYC17]

Sanders also denied it. Again, that means next to nothing.

EDIT: Incidentally, it is possible that Sanders is telling the truth -- that they asked the bank, and the bank said no -- and the bank was lying to them. I mean, let's not pretend Deutsche Bank is a paragon of virtue, here, and I doubt they want to broadcast "hey everyone, we're being raided by the FBI, thought you'd want to know". Do you know what happens when people think a bank is in trouble? Didn't you ever see Sneakers? Why the hell not?

She's getting that from Sukelow.

[Breccia]

Sure but it’s also possible that the story is wrong. Just like the Brian Ross stuff.

In a truth-off between Reuters and the White House, I will always put my money on Reuters. Their track record is just that much better.

Besides, in what world would anyone, yes including you, expect Trump to admit he was under investigation? This is a world where Manafort -- yes, that Manafort -- was working with a Russian to write an OP ED saying how great it was he was innocent, and violated his bail to do so. That's how dishonest Team Trump is. Their track record demands skepticism. I mean, you're taking as evidence the lawyer of the defendant. What do you expect him to say?

This is not the first we've heard of it

This is not the first time they've been asked. The Senate demanded info in the summer. Deutsche Bank denied them that info. In what world will Mueller say "welp, nothing to see here" and move on?

At what point will you realize that taking the word of Trump, as Israel has, as Russia has, as six of his businesses have, as hundreds of his employees have, as Chris Christie has, as Flynn did, as Bannon did, isn't going to pay off?

[NYC17]

In a truth-off between Reuters and the White House, I will always put my money on Reuters. Their track record is just that much better.

Besides, in what world would anyone, yes including you, expect Trump to admit he was under investigation? This is a world where Manafort -- yes, that Manafort -- was working with a Russian to write an OP ED saying how great it was he was innocent, and violated his bail to do so. That's how dishonest Team Trump is. Their track record demands skepticism. I mean, you're taking as evidence the lawyer of the defendant. What do you expect him to say?

This is not the first we've heard of it

This is not the first time they've been asked. The Senate demanded info in the summer. Deutsche Bank denied them that info. In what world will Mueller say "welp, nothing to see here" and move on?

At what point will you realize that taking the word of Trump, as Israel has, as Russia has, as six of his businesses have, as hundreds of his employees have, as Chris Christie has, as Flynn did, as Bannon did, isn't going to pay off?

It's also been independently confirmed by multiple news agencies. Confirmed by their own separate sources. One of them happens to be a German one...

https://global.handelsblatt.com/fina...he-bank-861185


But when you're snorting cheeto dust, Sukelow's word is somehow more credible.