Trump's Deutsche Bank Loans Underwritten by Russian State-Owned Bank

[Mormolyce]

Trump's Deutsche Bank Loans Underwritten by Russian State-Owned Bank, Whistleblower told FBI

Deutsche Bank’s loans to Donald Trump were underwritten by Russian state-owned VTB Bank, according to the whistleblower whose collection of thousands of bank documents and internal communications have captured the recent attention of federal investigators.

Val Broeksmit acquired the emails and files of his late father, Deutsche Bank executive William S. Broeksmit, after Broeksmit tragically took his own life in 2014.

Val informed the FBI in late 2019 about his knowledge of VTB’s underwriting of Trump’s loans, information he attributed to a network of sources connected to the bank he cultivated over the past five-plus years.

Underwriting is the process where financial institutions assess the ability of potential customers to fulfill their obligations. Underwriters have access to “credit and financial information, as well as the state of the [property],” according to US News, though underwriters can sometimes be unknown to the person seeking the loan.

Forensic News is not confirming the underlying claim that VTB underwrote Trump’s loans from Deutsche Bank.

Forensic News can, however, confirm that at least some of Trump’s loans were issued by a bank subsidiary with business ties to VTB. That subsidiary owed more than $48 million to VTB in 2013 and documents suggest the subsidiary continued doing business with VTB even after the bank was sanctioned in 2014.

One federal agent working on the Deutsche Bank investigation indicated that VTB is under scrutiny in the FBI criminal probe. “We know VTB very well,” the investigator said on background. That person did not comment directly on the Trump loans.

Val Broeksmit’s full statement is below:

https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/...ower-told-fbi/

So essentially, what everyone with a brain knew already is now a matter of public record. Trump's loans from the notoriously crooked Russian money laundering Deutsche Bank were indeed funded by Putin.

[Flarelaine]

There were rumours of DB being subpoena'd months ago and it still took the death of a shady exec and a sane offspring to bring shit to light, like with the Hofellers? Law enforcement can't keep counting on windfalls like that.

[Beazy]

Deutsche bank gets raided on a bi monthly basis.

[Dsonsion]

There were rumours of DB being subpoena'd months ago and it still took the death of a shady exec and a sane offspring to bring shit to light, like with the Hofellers? Law enforcement can't keep counting on windfalls like that.

Law enforcement was never willing to do anything serious about it. The only people they move their asses to persecute are the poor.

[Drutt]

I've never heard of "Forensic News" before. How credible is it? I can find very little about it online and it seems like all of the other outlets reporting on this key back to the "Forensic News" story.

[Edge-]

I've never heard of "Forensic News" before. How credible is it? I can find very little about it online and it seems like all of the other outlets reporting on this key back to the "Forensic News" story.

I followed sourcing back as much as I can to the original whistleblower dude, apparently.

It seems legit, but can't 100% confirm that it is. Waiting for more verification before I believe it wholesale, but it wouldn't be remotely surprising.

[Drutt]

I followed sourcing back as much as I can to the original whistleblower dude, apparently.

It seems legit, but can't 100% confirm that it is. Waiting for more verification before I believe it wholesale, but it wouldn't be remotely surprising.

I agree it wouldn't be surprising. There's just no way I'm trusting a source I can't determine the credibility of, given the volume of fake news around nowadays.

You'd think some major outlets would have picked it up by now, 5 days later, which reinforces my skepticism.

[DarkTZeratul]

I followed sourcing back as much as I can to the original whistleblower dude, apparently.

It seems legit, but can't 100% confirm that it is. Waiting for more verification before I believe it wholesale, but it wouldn't be remotely surprising.

Media Bias/Fact Check has them listed under "Sources Pending," so unfortunately they're no help here.

[ipaq]

This is hella old news.

Trump orgs defaulted on so many loans they can only get them from DB (for their so called projects) which was knows to be Russian Govt Backed for 15y+.

https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/...ower-told-fbi/

So essentially, what everyone with a brain knew already is now a matter of public record. Trump's loans from the notoriously crooked Russian money laundering Deutsche Bank were indeed funded by Putin.

[Mormolyce]

This is hella old news.

Trump orgs defaulted on so many loans they can only get them from DB (for their so called projects) which was knows to be Russian Govt Backed for 15y+.

What is news here is that this whistleblower unequivocally connects the source of the DB loans to Trump (specifically) with Russia.

I mean yes, anyone with a brain knows what it means when a guy like Trump can't get a loan in the US and gets one from DB no questions asked. But if the whistleblower's account is true, this would be direct proof.

[ringpriest]

I agree it wouldn't be surprising. There's just no way I'm trusting a source I can't determine the credibility of, given the volume of fake news around nowadays.

You'd think some major outlets would have picked it up by now, 5 days later, which reinforces my skepticism.

I can't imagine what on Earth could possibly have distracted media attention from rumors about Trump's banking.

That Trump is owned by Russian interests has been rather obvious to anyone taking a look at what is publicly known about his finances and operations from 2000 onward - his actions vis-a-vis Russia once he gained office demonstrate the connection even more clearly; the precise details of the strings on Trump (kompromat, financial dependence, debt, literal ownership of his businesses, flattery, greed, etc) are not available, so we probably can't reach a legal standard of proof, but his actions plus what is available don't really leave any room for doubt, nor would the nature of the connection make much difference; this is just one more stone in a bucket that is more than heavy enough to sink, it's just that no one (for their own reasons) is willing to toss it overboard.

- - - Updated - - -

I followed sourcing back as much as I can to the original whistleblower dude, apparently.

It seems legit, but can't 100% confirm that it is. Waiting for more verification before I believe it wholesale, but it wouldn't be remotely surprising.

The "whistleblower" is the son of the Deutsche Bank executive who oversaw much of the Trump's borrowing from the bank (he's been releasing his father's files) - the executive himself was found dead of apparent suicide in his Florida home late last year; the source is very real, whether he's right or not is something we can't know, yet (he obviously could be biased against Trump).

[Drutt]

I can't imagine what on Earth could possibly have distracted media attention from rumors about Trump's banking.

That justification might hold water if the media was reporting on literally nothing else but the Iran kerfuffle. But they're not ignoring everything else. A cursory look at every network's web site makes that obvious.

Modern news organisations are more than big enough to pursue multiple stories at once. The question is why no major outlet has picked up on this story, a story that's highly noteworthy if true.

[Ripster42]

That justification might hold water if the media was reporting on literally nothing else but the Iran kerfuffle. But they're not ignoring everything else. A cursory look at every network's web site makes that obvious.

I feel like this statement ignores the news consumption habits of different segments of the US population.

Modern news organisations are more than big enough to pursue multiple stories at once. The question is why no major outlet has picked up on this story, a story that's highly noteworthy if true.

Just going to point out, this isn't the first time it's been in the news. MSNBC retracted a story because it was based on one source last year, which, if it was a different source than this story, means there would be two sources. I stress that though the story was retracted, it wasn't retracted because the reporter thought it was untrue, but because they didn't have the standard multiple sourcing that journo's tend to like.

[Drutt]

I feel like this statement ignores the news consumption habits of different segments of the US population.

I'm sorry, I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

Just going to point out, this isn't the first time it's been in the news. MSNBC retracted a story because it was based on one source last year, which, if it was a different source than this story, means there would be two sources. I stress that though the story was retracted, it wasn't retracted because the reporter thought it was untrue, but because they didn't have the standard multiple sourcing that journo's tend to like.

Which highlights they're open to reporting on this kind of story. So why haven't they followed up? We're talking about enormous multi-national media conglomerates here. It's difficult to believe that not one major outlet has got wind of this yet when we're discussing it on MMOC (albeit not impossible). They certainly have the personnel to chase it down if aware of it, though.

Source scepticism is healthy. I'm not going to accept this story as true simply because I, personally, happen to believe it fits the existing reporting patterns and things we already know. I know Buzz Aldrin went to the moon, but that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically believe an article about what Buzz Aldrin did on the moon if it appears on a random website that has no credible background.

I'm going to take this with a grain of salt until a more established outlet nails their colours to the mast.

[DarkTZeratul]

Which highlights they're open to reporting on this kind of story. So why haven't they followed up? ...Source scepticism is healthy.

I think you answered your own question, given what Ripster pointed out above.

[Ripster42]

I'm sorry, I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

Iran basically pushed everything else but impeachment to print which means it's not in the news for large sections of the population. Sections of the population that vote in predictable ways.

Which highlights they're open to reporting on this kind of story. So why haven't they followed up? We're talking about enormous multi-national media conglomerates here. It's difficult to believe that not one major outlet has got wind of this yet when we're discussing it on MMOC (albeit not impossible). They certainly have the personnel to chase it down if aware of it, though.

Because odonnell basically got reamed for this story already for single source reporting, and this other place also only has one source.

[Paranoid Android]

Trump is dirty. I don't know how much SDNY is investigating or the evidence they have but he is obviously a crook. No doubt he uses and has been used by criminal organizations for money laundering.


This brings us back to Trump wasn't a successful businessman, a con man, who part of his cred was a reality tv show. Well, actually his whole cred was marketing even back in the 80's. I saw that a few days he spoke at some right-wing religious, convention and they were all around him praying for him. I laughed my ass, this guy don't give two craps about religion, but he know they are an easy mark. Hey, I'll give them (religious right) some credit in they are getting someone who wants us to bring us back to ancient times.