Mueller subpoenas Trump's Deutsche bank records

[Dashinka 24,793]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

well, you're also buying into the whole 'investigation is tainted because hillary' narrative which to me, is nonsense.

Is that like you and many others buying into the entire Russian collusion narrative?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is that like you and many others buying into the entire Russian collusion narrative?

No it is nothing like it.

[yuna628 9,713]

A German newspaper broke this story. Their exclusive never named Trump directly, but did conclude that it was related to his businesses, family members, or ''those close to him''. Of course being related to his businesses is sort of akin to Trump himself - but likely, sources have been pointed to certain targets next on the investigation list - so I suspect ''family members'' and ''those close'' would be accurate. His lawyer made a carefully worded denial, which skips the actual meaning of what the subpoena targeted. WSJ, FT, and Bloomberg stands by their reporting of the story, as does the German publication. It just requires a person to use reading comprehension. If anyone takes a little bit of time to research (and also research his transactions with them), Deutsche has long been involved in dirty money moving schemes. There's a lot of interesting little tidbits I could point out, but it starts getting murky... and that's usually intentional with such schemes.

 

https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/yes-deutsche-bank-did-get-a-subpoena-from-mueller-861828

Edited December 6, 2017 by yuna628

[Dashinka 24,793]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

No it is nothing like it.

You are right.  In one we are ignoring actual real proof, in the other it is just innuendo, supposition and maybe a salacious dossier.

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is that like you and many others buying into the entire Russian collusion narrative?

completely opposite. 

[Dashinka 24,793]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

A German newspaper broke this story. Their exclusive never named Trump directly, but did conclude that it was related to his businesses, family members, or ''those close to him''. Of course being related to his businesses is sort of akin to Trump himself - but likely, sources have been pointed to certain targets next on the investigation list - so I suspect ''family members'' and ''those close'' would be accurate. His lawyer made a carefully worded denial, which skips the actual meaning of what the subpoena targeted. WJS, FT, and Bloomberg stands by their reporting of the story, as does the German publication. It just requires a person to use reading comprehension. If anyone takes a little bit of time to research (and also research his transactions with them), Deutsche has long been involved in dirty money moving schemes. There's a lot of interesting little tidbits I could point out, but it starts getting murky... and that's usually intentional with such schemes.

 

https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/yes-deutsche-bank-did-get-a-subpoena-from-mueller-861828

The reporting is not an issue, it is the headlines that are being walked back now as they seemed to be going for the Ross effect initially.

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

completely opposite. 

Only to some, but I guess that is politics.  Hopefully we drain the political swamp that is the FBI soon.

[yuna628 9,713]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

The reporting is not an issue, it is the headlines that are being walked back now as they seemed to be going for the Ross effect initially.

Maybe so? But I never saw WSJ, FT, and Bloomberg walk back anything. Reuters words it as ''for data on accounts held by President Donald Trump and his family''. That article doesn't make the distinction between a personal checking account for instance and an account he used to move money around for business dealings - but it would be his account or joint type accounts with his family nevertheless. It continues with ''A U.S. official with knowledge of Mueller’s probe said one reason for the subpoenas was to find out whether Deutsche Bank may have sold some of Trump’s mortgage or other loans to Russian state development bank VEB or other Russian banks that now are under U.S. and European Union sanctions.'' That again relates to the dirty money moving scheme between Deutsche, VEB and others. At any rate I certainly don't see Reuters walking it back, even if they could have worded it a little more clearer.

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Maybe so? But I never saw WSJ, FT, and Bloomberg walk back anything. Reuters words it as ''for data on accounts held by President Donald Trump and his family''. That article doesn't make the distinction between a personal checking account for instance and an account he used to move money around for business dealings - but it would be his account or joint type accounts with his family nevertheless. It continues with ''A U.S. official with knowledge of Mueller’s probe said one reason for the subpoenas was to find out whether Deutsche Bank may have sold some of Trump’s mortgage or other loans to Russian state development bank VEB or other Russian banks that now are under U.S. and European Union sanctions.'' That again relates to the dirty money moving scheme between Deutsche, VEB and others. At any rate I certainly don't see Reuters walking it back, even if they could have worded it a little more clearer.

Here is the walk back from WSJ of in this case a sub-headline.

 

Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier subheadline said a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office requested data and documents about President Trump’s accounts. The subpoena concerns people or entities close to Mr. Trump.

 

Not really sure what it means to say people or entities close to Trump, but it does seem like Mueller and his band of biased participants are heading off into a new direction.  This is my biggest issue with the appointment of Mueller with no direction given and no actual underlying crime identified.  Way too much latitude and power which we all know can be very corruptive as we are seeing. I wonder what else the OSC is hiding from Congress and the people relative to their staff or the support staff from the FBI. Whatever, it is really fun to watch how one topic gets dismissed and the other gets promoted for not apparent reason other than politics. 

 

 

[yuna628 9,713]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Here is the walk back from WSJ of in this case a sub-headline.

 

Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier subheadline said a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office requested data and documents about President Trump’s accounts. The subpoena concerns people or entities close to Mr. Trump.

 

Not really sure what it means to say people or entities close to Trump, but it does seem like Mueller and his band of biased participants are heading off into a new direction.  This is my biggest issue with the appointment of Mueller with no direction given and no actual underlying crime identified.  Way too much latitude and power which we all know can be very corruptive as we are seeing. I wonder what else the OSC is hiding from Congress and the people relative to their staff or the support staff from the FBI. Whatever, it is really fun to watch how one topic gets dismissed and the other gets promoted for not apparent reason other than politics. 

 

 

You know how money laundering, corruption, bribery, blackmail, and quid pro quos work right? If you are attempting to establish a crime was committed you need to investigate all aspects, even IF no crime is discovered to be committed you still have to check on it. SP's are given broad investigative powers. Have you really forgotten what went on with SP's during the Nixon and Clinton years? It's pretty clear why they are looking at these accounts.

 

Think of it this way: when we fill out our immigration forms, we are giving the government a blank check to investigate every aspect of our lives, even if us and our spouses have done nothing amiss. That broad investigative power is growing now that the DHS/USCIS is going to start keeping social media records and internet activities of every single thing you, your spouse, even your family members may be doing online. There's many examples of this - and we are consistently told that if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear.

Edited December 6, 2017 by yuna628

[jayjayj 571]

This turned out to be fake news.  Typical!

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

You know how money laundering, corruption, bribery, blackmail, and quid pro quos work right? If you are attempting to establish a crime was committed you need to investigate all aspects, even IF no crime is discovered to be committed you still have to check on it. SP's are given broad investigative powers. Have you really forgotten what went on with SP's during the Nixon and Clinton years? It's pretty clear why they are looking at these accounts.

What you are suggesting is that pick a high level person, start an investigation and just keep it alive until something is found or a process crime can be snuck in.  I understand the latitude the SPs are given, but usually don't they start with an actual crime or at least an alleged crime?  I think everyone knows by now that talking to a foreign person is not a crime, but of course actually using money to pay a foreign agent to assist the campaign is (except for some).  This is why I wish Mueller (as unbiased as he is supposed to be), should be investigating both sides of this election as we certainly have questions of both.  Now if he is, why isn't the OSC leaking that information?

 

On another note, you are an attorney right?  If so, what is your opinion on the entire Peter Strzok episode that is unfolding with one side trying to play it up and the other side trying to downplay it as much as possible?  I would think a criminal defense attorney would be drooling over the possibility that the lead investigator is now tainted.

[yuna628 9,713]

13 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What you are suggesting is that pick a high level person, start an investigation and just keep it alive until something is found or a process crime can be snuck in.  I understand the latitude the SPs are given, but usually don't they start with an actual crime or at least an alleged crime?  I think everyone knows by now that talking to a foreign person is not a crime, but of course actually using money to pay a foreign agent to assist the campaign is (except for some).  This is why I wish Mueller (as unbiased as he is supposed to be), should be investigating both sides of this election as we certainly have questions of both.  Now if he is, why isn't the OSC leaking that information?

 

On another note, you are an attorney right?  If so, what is your opinion on the entire Peter Strzok episode that is unfolding with one side trying to play it up and the other side trying to downplay it as much as possible?  I would think a criminal defense attorney would be drooling over the possibility that the lead investigator is now tainted.

I'm not an attorney.  Interesting enough I once had the opportunity go to the same university where POTUS' lawyer does his 'professoring', but I opted not to. Put most of the going to law school stuff on the back burner years ago when mom's health went bad. Hubby still wants me to go for it though, and his employment has a program where I could take criminal justice and transfer to a law university if I wanted to. It's going to be a while... I'd rather settle into life with him and raise a family, but I'm thinking on it... it's something I'm passionate about.

 

The SP's job is to investigate if there were anything bad going on. I think everything so far is tied to that. All of the angles being looked at, including financial stuff may be related. If you are told to investigate something, and you do.. and in the process of that investigation you find out there is additional bad stuff going on that may or may not be related (again IT MAY be related we just don't have all the pieces yet) it's his job to make the case. Under DOJ directions in his appointment it requests him to look at the main issue as well as ''any matters that arose or may arise directly during the investigation''. He cannot turn a blind eye to wrongdoing that may come up in addition to the main task. If he comes across something that he feels is out of his scope (and this could happen), he can request permission from the DOJ. I don't know if that's happened, but it's possible? And isn't that a good thing? Don't you want to know if your President has done something wrong or not? Don't you want to know if the men surrounding him have done something wrong or not? I would think any American deserves to know. It may make us uncomfortable as a nation to think about or consider, but it should be done.

 

Additionally I would add that we don't know if Mueller is investigating some aspects of the election when it comes to the DNC/email theft/cyberops/cybercrimes/Hillary. We simply don't know yet. I'd be completely comfortable with Hillary being looked at.

 

As for Strzok, he was removed by Mueller, yes? Which is completely appropriate. That would be the right thing to do. His 'removal' happened some time ago, and according to this article was nearly unheard of at the time. http://www.businessinsider.com/top-fbi-investigator-peter-strzok-steps-away-from-russia-probe-2017-8 That means I think that Mueller felt it absolutely had to be done. Publications like the National Review do admit it was a good thing for him to do, even if it may erode confidence a bit, there is nothing to suggest Strzok is responsible for findings in the current investigation now. And I'd also be comfortable with Strzok being investigated if that would better inspire confidence, most sensible publications suggest as much. If all he had done was privately express personal political views, but had good conduct otherwise, has he done anything wrong? Individuals are allowed to have them. Now if there is a smoking gun email that reads ''I totally want to pin fake crimes on Trump, and I'll totally fake some evidence and remove some evidence involving Hillary'' that would be extremely concerning. So far there doesn't seem to be much about that. The OIG is investigating the matter so far, so let's see what they have to say. His actions regarding the grossly negligent phrase also start being a little weak in terms of outcry, when you think about. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/05/donald-trump-russia-probe-fbi-official-anti-trump-texts-216013

 

Of course partisan voices will scream about it.. those voices are not screaming out of any care for the system, process, or America.. you know the heart of it is for political reasons. But I say let the OIG do it's job. Mueller punted the guy off the case, which is good.

 

[yuna628 9,713]

May or may not be related but:

 

 

Update: supposed to be a huge gang operation but not a lot of info as to what it's about..

Edited December 6, 2017 by yuna628

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Here is the walk back from WSJ of in this case a sub-headline.

 

Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier subheadline said a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office requested data and documents about President Trump’s accounts. The subpoena concerns people or entities close to Mr. Trump.

 

Not really sure what it means to say people or entities close to Trump, but it does seem like Mueller and his band of biased participants are heading off into a new direction.  This is my biggest issue with the appointment of Mueller with no direction given and no actual underlying crime identified.  Way too much latitude and power which we all know can be very corruptive as we are seeing. I wonder what else the OSC is hiding from Congress and the people relative to their staff or the support staff from the FBI. Whatever, it is really fun to watch how one topic gets dismissed and the other gets promoted for not apparent reason other than politics. 

 

 

You have arrests and guilty pleas in a relatively short period. I am not sure which if those crimes you would let slide. Obviously, There are more charges coming. If Trump had not fired Comey, it us unlikely we would have a special counsel. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

ElmcityMaven is our resident legal expert, Bill.  Not Yuna.