Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[D Luniz]

You never know, there might actually be a line where they turn on him, but there is clearly none in sight.

probly not until they are being frog marched to some prison cause the last time they were in a meeting they only gave 28 seconds of praise instead of the mandated 30 seconds plus

[Gorsameth]

Why is Trump even so worried? Half of the people in power in the US govt are people he placed there or are shills for him.

He is a massive narcissist. Its not so much that he is worried, its that his mind in incapable of accepting that he isn't perfect.

[Orbitus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/b...p-kushner.html

So, both Kushner and Trump transactions through the Deutsche Bank were flagged by their anti-money laundering system several times, and the executives of the Bank, whom got tons of quid pro quo from Trump, cleared the transactions. Including MILLIONS of fines waved away when Trump was put in office.

[Shalcker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/b...p-kushner.html

So, both Kushner and Trump transactions through the Deutsche Bank were flagged by their anti-money laundering system several times, and the executives of the Bank, whom got tons of quid pro quo from Trump, cleared the transactions. Including MILLIONS of fines waved away when Trump was put in office.

Being flagged suspicious doesn't necessarily means actual money laundering; it just means those transactions need eyes on them to be cleared.

Which is exactly what happened.

[Orbitus]

Being flagged suspicious doesn't necessarily means actual money laundering; it just means those transactions need eyes on them to be cleared.

Which is exactly what happened.

Yeah, right. Fucking bullshit spin machine is back. It just went all the way up the chain to the executives who knew they could get a break on the fines that were levied against them under Obama for Money Laundering for your boss and his oligarch friends.

[D Luniz]

Being flagged suspicious doesn't necessarily means actual money laundering; it just means those transactions need eyes on them to be cleared.

Which is exactly what happened.

no, that aint what happened

But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.

[Dontrike]

Being flagged suspicious doesn't necessarily means actual money laundering; it just means those transactions need eyes on them to be cleared.

Which is exactly what happened.

So many eyes on them that they cleared them so no eyes can be on them. Did you actually read what you typed?

[Shalcker]

no, that aint what happened

How did that decision got to executive level anyway rather then report being filed as part of policy?

Was there dissent on wherever report should or should not be filed that was resolved on executive level, or do they review all decisions regarding their customers above certain level?

[Breccia]

So, both Kushner and Trump transactions through the Deutsche Bank were flagged by their anti-money laundering system several times

It's not Trump-specific, but, this 60 Minutes interview goes over a lot about Russian money laundering.

It's impossible to say exactly where the $230 billion of dirty money originated beyond the banks of Moscow. It's been estimated that about a third of the Russian economy is off the books, awash in cash, much of it is from corruption, bribes, and tax evasion by oligarchs, plutocrats and mafiosi. And it is impossible to tell exactly where it is hidden now beyond the shell companies, tax havens and expensive real estate in New York and London.

"New York? You sure it's not Trump specific?"

Maybe some implied. But, besides the staggering $230 billion (or "twenty point nine Trump Shutdowns") number, the bolded is important. It'd be foolish to assume Trump didn't get involved with Russian money laundering accidentally.

[Trifle]

How did that decision got to executive level anyway rather then report being filed as part of policy?

Was there dissent on wherever report should or should not be filed that was resolved on executive level, or do they review all decisions regarding their customers above certain level?

From the article, normal chain is: computer detection -> mid level employee -> independent senior level employee -> federal report filed
For bigger clients though, the chain changed to: computer detection -> mid level employee -> business manager (ie vested interest in ignoring it) -> ignored

This is unsurprising, given that:

In the past few years, United States and European authorities have punished Deutsche Bank for helping clients, including wealthy Russians, launder funds and for moving money into countries like Iran in violation of American sanctions. The bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and is operating under a Federal Reserve order that requires it to do more to stop illicit activities.

[Edge-]

Being flagged suspicious doesn't necessarily means actual money laundering; it just means those transactions need eyes on them to be cleared.

Which is exactly what happened.

Sure, it was just flagged as suspicious by one of the only banks that will still lend to Trump after almost all major US banks blaklisted his ass for repeatedly defaulting on loans.

Wonder why Deutsche Bank would take on such risk and repeatedly loan to them, and then bury internal reports of suspicious behavior rather than do their due diligence and investigate.

Not remotely suspicious. At. All.

[Shadowferal]

Justin Amash Becomes First GOP Lawmaker to Say Trump Should Be Impeached

In his tweets on Saturday, Amash explained that he came to four conclusions “after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.” Those conclusions were that:

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.

2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.

3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.

4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

Amash, who is also an attorney, then went into more detail, explaining that “it’s clear that Barr intended to mislead the public” when he summarized the report, since it actually reveals that Trump “engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.”

“In fact,” he continued — echoing the opinion of many legal experts — “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence

[bladeXcrasher]

Obviously, just a RINO.

[Seiklis]

Obviously, just a RINO.

And for once the term is accurate. Amash is an actual Libertarian.

[kaelleria]

This is huge -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b22624314472

Cohen told lawmakers Trump attorney Jay Sekulow instructed him to falsely claim Moscow project ended in January 2016

Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former longtime personal attorney, told a House panel during closed-door hearings earlier this year that he had been instructed by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow to falsely claim in a 2017 statement to Congress that negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016, according to people familiar with his testimony.

In fact, Cohen later admitted that discussions on the Moscow tower continued into June of the presidential election year, after it was clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. Cohen is serving three years in prison for lying to Congress, financial crimes and campaign finance violations.

House Democrats are now scrutinizing whether Sekulow or other Trump attorneys played a role in shaping Cohen’s 2017 testimony to Congress. Cohen has said he made the false statement to help hide the fact that Trump had potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in a possible Russian project while he was running for president.

“We’re trying to find out whether anyone participated in the false testimony that Cohen gave to this committee,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said in an interview. He did not comment on who, if anyone, might have instructed Cohen to lie.

Jane Serene Raskin and Patrick Strawbridge, attorneys for Sekulow, said in a statement that “Cohen’s alleged statements are more of the same from him and confirm the observations of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that Cohen’s ‘instinct to blame others is strong.’”

“That this or any Committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any purpose — much less to try and pierce the attorney-client privilege and discover confidential communications of four respected lawyers — defies logic, well-established law and common sense,” they added.


Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney to the president, has called Cohen’s allegations “completely false.” (Steve Helber/AP)
Cohen’s claims about Sekulow are laid out in transcripts of his February and March appearances before the House intelligence panel that could be released as soon as Monday afternoon.

Cohen’s closed-door testimony before the committee led congressional Democrats this month to press Sekulow and other Trump family lawyers who were involved in a joint defense agreement for more information about work they did preparing Cohen’s 2017 statement. Schiff has asked four attorneys to turn over documents and schedule interviews with the panel, a request they have so far rebuffed as an threat to the long-standing protection provided to communications between lawyers and their clients.

In his public testimony before the House Oversight Committee in January, Cohen said that “Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.”

He accused Sekulow of making changes to the 2017 statement.

“There were changes made, additions, Jay Sekulow, for one,” Cohen told the panel.

Sekulow denied the claim by Cohen at the time, calling such assertions “completely false.”

In subsequent closed-door appearances before the House Intelligence Committee in February and March, Cohen was more specific, saying Sekulow told him it would be important to use Jan. 31, 2016, as the date when discussions about the Moscow project ended, according to the people familiar with his testimony, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the panel’s ongoing investigation.

Sekulow told Cohen the date was significant because it came before the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, the opening contest of the White House race, Cohen said to the committee.

When asked about the account of Cohen’s closed-door testimony, Lanny Davis, an attorney for Cohen, said, “I cannot disagree with that.”

It is unclear how much detailed knowledge Sekulow had about the timeline of Trump’s most recent effort to build a branded tower in Moscow, which Cohen began in September 2015 and ended in June 2016, according to court documents. Sekulow joined Trump’s legal team after he was elected.

Despite Cohen’s history of lying to Congress, senior Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees indicated that they are taking his allegations seriously.

“If it is accurate that one of the President’s personal attorneys encouraged him or edited his testimony to give Congress a false date, it’s further evidence that the President had some reason for not wanting the American people, or the Senate Intelligence Committee, to know the truth about his dealings with Russia as a candidate,” Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

Cohen’s claims were reviewed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who sought — but did not succeed — in questioning one of Trump’s personal attorneys about interactions he had with Cohen about the 2017 testimony.

According to Mueller’s report, Cohen spoke to a counsel for Trump frequently in the days before he submitted his statement to Congress on Aug. 28, 2017. The Trump lawyer was not named in the report.

Cohen told investigators that he recalled telling the president’s lawyer that the statement did not reflect the extent of communications with Russia and Trump about the Moscow project.

The Trump attorney told Cohen that it was not necessary to include other details in the statement, which he advised should be kept “tight.” Cohen told investigators he also recalled that the lawyer told him “his client” appreciated Cohen and he should stay on message and not contradict the president, according to the report.

Mueller’s team sought to speak to the Trump lawyer about the conversations with Cohen, “but counsel declined, citing potential privilege concerns,” according to the report.

Cohen’s claims led Schiff to demand information from Sekulow and three other lawyers who played a role reviewing Cohen’s 2017 testimony: Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump; Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Donald Trump Jr.; and Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization.

The four lawyers have said they cannot answer Schiff’s requests because of attorney-client privilege, which bars them from discussing confidential conversations.

Schiff has promised to push ahead, threatening to issue a subpoena for the lawyers’ cooperation if necessary, noting that they had an incentive to encourage Cohen’s initial testimony.

“Cohen himself stood little to gain by lying to our committee,” Schiff told The Washington Post. “Donald Trump and others around him stood far more to gain from that being concealed from our investigation. So it obviously begs the question of whether this was something he did on his own . . . or were there others who participated in the falsehood before our committee.”

Schiff also warned that the privilege claim may not allow the attorneys to avoid testifying before his committee.

“The privilege doesn’t apply if it’s being used to conceal a crime or a fraud,” he said. “And if the attorneys were conferring amongst themselves and Mr. Cohen about a false statement they were going to make to our committee, there’s no privilege that protects that kind of conduct.”

In a letter to Schiff Friday, attorneys for the four Trump lawyers expressed dismay at Schiff’s effort to compel their testimony.

“We find the Committee’s outright, blanket refusal to recognize the attorney-client privilege — a bedrock principle of common law dating back centuries — to be stunning, unwise, and unwarranted,” they wrote.

They called the inquiry “an attempt to pursue a law-enforcement investigation which is outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch.”

Schiff has also expressed interest in hearing from Felix Sater, a Trump business partner who was working the Russian side of the Trump Tower Moscow proposal in 2016.

Lawyers for Cohen said it appears that Sater and his attorney reviewed Cohen’s testimony before it was submitted to Congress in 2017, according to documents they reviewed. Sater’s involvement negates any privilege claim, Cohen’s attorneys said.

“Because it appears that the draft statement was shared with two non-privileged individuals — Mr. Sater and his lawyer — the joint defense privilege was in our professional opinion waived,” said Davis, one of two criminal defense attorneys representing Cohen.

Sater and Cohen had discussions about the Moscow project into June 2016, but Sater did not correct Cohen’s original assertion to Congress that the project ended that January.

Sater declined to comment on questions about Cohen’s testimony but he said he stands ready to cooperate with Schiff’s inquiries.

“I have always cooperated with the U.S. government and look forward to continued cooperation,” Sater said. “I will make myself available to Congressman Schiff’s committee or any other committee as they deem necessary.”

[Orbitus]

This is huge -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b22624314472

Time for Sekulow to be arrested.

[Grapemask]

Time for Sekulow to be arrested.

And time for rda and Shalcker to jump in and tell us all about how a known liar can't be trusted!

[Elegiac]

This is huge -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b22624314472

Whoops.

So much for no obstruction.

- - - Updated - - -

And time for rda and Shalcker to jump in and tell us all about how a known liar can't be trusted!

Either that or some garbage about how instructing someone to lie to Congress isn't obstruction of justice, you guys. :'(

[cubby]

Whoops.

So much for no obstruction.

- - - Updated - - -



Either that or some garbage about how instructing someone to lie to Congress isn't obstruction of justice, you guys. :'(

Lol exactly. We're just going to have to wait until the Dems take the White House in 2021, and then we can see all the records, accurately, get the tax returns and put the whole picture together. Trumpkins will never falter from their willful ignorance, so it will be left (again!) to the democrats to pick up the pieces and fix the country.

[Captain N]

Not surprising there was more to come with this whole mess.

The Trumpkin base is already in damage control mode on their respective safe-space websites claiming that this is a Deep State attack on Trump because the Mueller Report found "nothing".