Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-07-2019, 02:57 PM
Clu-Me-In is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 494

Trump's Tax Returns and Money Laundering


The President has been fighting harder than ever before to prevent a general disclosure of his tax returns. This to me is the linchpin to whether he wins a 2nd term in office or even finishes his term.

So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs? Will Senate Republican continue to turn a blind eye to this kind of criminality?
__________________
Shoot for the moon, if you miss you will be among the stars

Last edited by Clu-Me-In; 08-07-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #2  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:04 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In View Post
The President has been fighting harder than ever before to prevent a general disclosure of his tax returns. This to me is the linchpin to whether he wins a 2nd term in office or even finishes his term.

So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs? Will Senate Republican continue to turn a blind eye to this kind of criminality?
Of course they would. There is nothing he could do to make the Republicans disavow him because they are scared shitless of his base.
  #3  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:11 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,774
I think that what might be found in his returns is simply written, signed proof that he's a liar. You know, just generally. I'm not sure there is anything specific that can be put together from them, aside from the fact that he's full of shit.
And Republicans in congress will bend over backwards to cover for him. Shit, they're already doing that to keep them from being given to congress. Expect that to continue.
  #4  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:37 PM
Ambrosio Spinola is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I think that what might be found in his returns is simply written, signed proof that he's a liar. You know, just generally. I'm not sure there is anything specific that can be put together from them, aside from the fact that he's full of shit.
And Republicans in congress will bend over backwards to cover for him. Shit, they're already doing that to keep them from being given to congress. Expect that to continue.
I give it about a 95% chance that he wrote off the hush money he paid to Stormy Daniels as "legal expenses" based on phony invoices from Michael Cohen, just based on what's publicly known about how that transaction went down. I think it's also reasonably clear that Trump and all his siblings profited from blatant tax fraud engineered originally by their father Fred, but in that case it might be too late to bring charges for it. (The NYT had a couple of exposes about it, and Trump's sister Maryanne just up and resigned as a federal judge rather than have her own taxes probed.)
  #5  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:42 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,237
I am not an accountant -

Aside from the basic Trump reaction to defend himself against all perceived attacks, ISTM his reasoning for not wanting his tax returns available are:
  • It will show that he is not a rich as he proclaims.
  • It will open him up to accusations of fraud. The game for him is to low ball on taxes, and to overstate when getting loans. Either way he's gaming/cheating/lying, and NY AG's would be very interested to know just when and how.
  #6  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:57 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrosio Spinola View Post
... Trump's sister Maryanne just up and resigned as a federal judge rather than have her own taxes probed.)
Wow, I hadn't heard about that. Thanks for sharing it.
  #7  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:28 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In View Post
So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs?
I am not an expert in tax law, but just as a matter of common sense, can someone explain to me how a wealthy individual under constant audit would submit tax returns that ďshow he had engaged in money laundering?Ē I mean, if the crime itself is being covered up, wouldnít the tax returns be just as opaque?

I just donít get what people expect to see in the tax returns that would constitute the smoking gun for such a crime. In order for me to believe this, Iíd have to believe Trump has been honest in his tax returns (fat chance) and that the IRS has just decided not to pursue this smoking gun evidence of money laundering or whatever for more than a decade, despite having the tax returns that would (in this fantastical scenario) prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that his returns are embarrassing in that he isnít as rich as he makes out and he pays a much smaller percent of his income in taxes. I just donít believe his tax returns would be the eureka moment when heís indicted for a bazillion crimes.
  #8  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:55 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I believe that his returns are embarrassing in that he isnít as rich as he makes out and he pays a much smaller percent of his income in taxes. I just donít believe his tax returns would be the eureka moment when heís indicted for a bazillion crimes.
Again, it's not about the tax returns in isolation. When you compare them to what he stated to get loans, then it gets dicier.
  #9  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:00 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Again, it's not about the tax returns in isolation. When you compare them to what he stated to get loans, then it gets dicier.
As far as I can tell, only one bank would do business with him in recent decades, and they did so knowing that he was a terrible risk. I would not at all rule out that there was something bad going on there, I just donít see how tax returns shine further light on that.

After all, if Deutche Bank is involved in corrupt deals - a likelihood, IMHO - its hard to see that they were defrauded by Trumpís declarations of his income. Surely they were in cahoots with each other, which says to me that whatís on his returns is irrelevant.
  #10  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:57 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,774
Could be, but there's only one way to find out. Michael Cohen gave congress all the reason they need in his testimony.
  #11  
Old 08-08-2019, 12:34 PM
JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In View Post
So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs? Will Senate Republican continue to turn a blind eye to this kind of criminality?
I feel like a lot of people are glossing over the fact that a large part of having a top secret clearance (which the President has by nature of his job) is to not be beholden financially or otherwise to foreign interests. If he wasn't president, the current circumstantial evidence on this front would likely send him to prison for many, many years for putting our nation at risk. The only thing protecting him is the office.

I've also been wondering how in the world the Republican party can support this. I know many of them, like McConnell are just as corrupt (or more), but.. the entire party?

Speaking as someone who went through background investigations recently enough that it's all fresh, my mind boggles how he got approved for a clearance. I know, they pushed it through. I feel really bad for the CIA, FBI and whichever other agencies are responsible and accountable for the right people being cleared and the wrong ones not. They are surely doing time "in the barrel" these last few years!
  #12  
Old 08-08-2019, 12:54 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,589
The President doesn't get approved for a clearance. When the people of the United States elected him, they gave him his security clearance.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #13  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:38 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In View Post
The President has been fighting harder than ever before to prevent a general disclosure of his tax returns. This to me is the linchpin to whether he wins a 2nd term in office or even finishes his term.

So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs? Will Senate Republican continue to turn a blind eye to this kind of criminality?
Can anyone cite an actual crime, as in a violation of a specific criminal statute, that Trump's tax returns would provide clear, realistic evidence that that statute had been violated?

For example, let's look at tax fraud. I'm under the impression that the IRS is pretty good at identifying tax fraud. If Trump has filed a fraudulent tax return, then why is there going to be some sudden relevant evidence that the IRS has missed?

Likewise, money laundering. If Trump is smart enough to launder money someone else's dirty money, he's smart enough to keep his own dirty money off his tax returns. What do you expect to be on the tax return that will show clear evidence of money laundering?

The other crime I've read allegations of, that the tax returns are supposed to reveal, is illegal foreign payments. Why on Earth would Trump declare illegal tax payments on his tax returns?

I'm not asking these questions as some sort of Trump denier. I believe he's a genuinely dishonest person who's played the tax system and hired accountants and tax lawyers to help him get away with it. But if someone believe's a specific law has been broken, and has an explanation of how the release of Trump's tax returns will show that that specific law has been broken, I'd like to hear it.
  #14  
Old 08-08-2019, 04:20 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Can anyone cite an actual crime, as in a violation of a specific criminal statute, that Trump's tax returns would provide clear, realistic evidence that that statute had been violated?

For example, let's look at tax fraud. I'm under the impression that the IRS is pretty good at identifying tax fraud. If Trump has filed a fraudulent tax return, then why is there going to be some sudden relevant evidence that the IRS has missed?

Likewise, money laundering. If Trump is smart enough to launder money someone else's dirty money, he's smart enough to keep his own dirty money off his tax returns. What do you expect to be on the tax return that will show clear evidence of money laundering?

The other crime I've read allegations of, that the tax returns are supposed to reveal, is illegal foreign payments. Why on Earth would Trump declare illegal tax payments on his tax returns?

I'm not asking these questions as some sort of Trump denier. I believe he's a genuinely dishonest person who's played the tax system and hired accountants and tax lawyers to help him get away with it. But if someone believe's a specific law has been broken, and has an explanation of how the release of Trump's tax returns will show that that specific law has been broken, I'd like to hear it.
It is somewhat unlikely that Trump would have clearly inserted criminal activities into the returns.

On the other hand, he has already done so and been "reprimanded" for it.

For years, he skimmed from his charity, knowing that the authorities weren't going to look too closely at the payments so long as they went to other charities. Once the press started looking into him and went through the public documents for the Trump Foundation, it was immediately clear that there was a pattern of embezzlement going on.

As the press then reported on this, on the next tax filing, the CFO explicitly marked a checkbox on the tax form for self-dealing. That is to say, they explicitly declared that they had illegally misused funds from the charity. Ultimately, you take a harder hit if you don't declare the criminal activity. I believe that there might be some similar checkboxes on individual tax returns where you can admit to criminal activity and where, if you don't, the penalty and legal ramifications will be much higher for you than if you allow the IRS to discover it on their own.

But the key thing is the difference between being one in a few million tax payers and being a guy who is individually targeted for detailed investigation by both the IRS and the media.

In previous years, when Trump filed his taxes, he only needed to obfuscate things to a level sufficient to bypass detailed scrutiny. His newer returns will be professionally obfuscated to a much more advanced degree, one assumes, but the ones from previous years will still be the same as they were when they were written. There's some chance that they won't bear the heightened scrutiny.

Quite plausibly, Trump has already had a sealed indictment for tax fraud issued against him by the IRS.

As I've noted before, when Trump gets out of office, he needs to make sure that he's on foreign soil. If he's standing in the USA when his term ends, the odds are pretty decent that the FBI will be waiting to escort him and his family to jail.
  #15  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:05 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In View Post
The President has been fighting harder than ever before to prevent a general disclosure of his tax returns. This to me is the linchpin to whether he wins a 2nd term in office or even finishes his term.

So, what if Trump's Tax Returns show he has engaged in Money laundering for Russian Oligarchs? Will Senate Republican continue to turn a blind eye to this kind of criminality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC16c98hDPc

Did you... miss him say this, or just not get that he wasn't wrong about their loyalty? He has a habit of blurting out the hush-hush parts of his politics, and true-to-form, he plainly laid out the slavish loyalty of his portion of the electorate, and consequently, the Republican party that fears them.

That said, he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and he'd likely be able to retain office (thanks, Moscow Mitch ).
  #16  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:29 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
But if someone believe's a specific law has been broken, and has an explanation of how the release of Trump's tax returns will show that that specific law has been broken, I'd like to hear it.
Obviously if he's broken tax law, the IRS already knows. It could be that he has had financial ties to with criminal types that--while not illegal in and of themselves--just look really bad.

Everything Trump does is an act--a cheap performance for the dupes--and nothing more. That's the only thing he knows how to do. If he's afraid of anything, it's something that exposes his bullshit.
  #17  
Old 08-08-2019, 11:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Of course they would. There is nothing he could do to make the Republicans disavow him because they are scared shitless of his base.
And also, because some prominent Republicans and Republican causes are probably in the same position. Russia didn't just corrupt a campaign; it corrupted a party, and a government.
  #18  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:18 AM
JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The President doesn't get approved for a clearance. When the people of the United States elected him, they gave him his security clearance.
Well, I think we now know what a bad idea that is. Why are the security agencies working so hard to investigate contractors and federal workers for clearances when any old yokel is handed one just because he was elected. I see this as a gigantic flaw in our system. The person most charged with protecting and governing our national interests absolutely MUST be clearable.
  #19  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:26 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
Well, I think we now know what a bad idea that is. Why are the security agencies working so hard to investigate contractors and federal workers for clearances when any old yokel is handed one just because he was elected. I see this as a gigantic flaw in our system. The person most charged with protecting and governing our national interests absolutely MUST be clearable.
There are various threads on this subject. The President is in charge of the clearance process, and it's up to the President as to what Executive Branch information is classified. He or She can decide who gets a clearance, who doesn't, who has access to what information, and what classification that information is.
  #20  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:48 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
Well, I think we now know what a bad idea that is. Why are the security agencies working so hard to investigate contractors and federal workers for clearances when any old yokel is handed one just because he was elected. I see this as a gigantic flaw in our system. The person most charged with protecting and governing our national interests absolutely MUST be clearable.
[SARCASM] I agree with you. The US government should implement this idea immediately. They should establish a Department of Homeland Security agency to vet all future Presidential, Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court candidates and decide if the candidate has a worthy background for that office. The citizens of the US should have absolute faith that this agency will be independent and non-partisan. [/SARCASM]

By the way, does past drug use rule someone out of holding a top-secret clearance? Or is that merely a factor that can be considered by the independent, non-partisan vetting agency?
  #21  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:36 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,786
We already do have a committee, which includes a wide variety of experts, who vets presidential candidates in great detail and determines whether they're fit to hold office. And in 2016, 62,984,828 members of that committee decided that he was fit.
  #22  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:45 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Of course they would. There is nothing he could do to make the Republicans disavow him because they are scared shitless of his base.
Do you think that his base would stay with him if there was incontrovertible proof that his businesses helped to launder and funnel money to the 9/11 terrorists?
  #23  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:47 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Do you think that his base would stay with him if there was incontrovertible proof that his businesses helped to launder and funnel money to the 9/11 terrorists?
That's easy - "Fake news created by the Deep State and Crooked Hillary. Her deleted emails showed how they were doing it, that's why they were acid-washed"
  #24  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:47 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We already do have a committee, which includes a wide variety of experts, who vets presidential candidates in great detail and determines whether they're fit to hold office. And in 2016, 62,984,828 members of that committee decided that he was fit.
Are you testifying that this shows the current system works, or are you testifying that this shows the current system doesn't work?
  #25  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:03 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,786
I'm testifying that this is what the current system does. I don't claim that it actually works, but nor do I claim that any other alternative would work any better.
  #26  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:42 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm testifying that this is what the current system does. I don't claim that it actually works, but nor do I claim that any other alternative would work any better.
You can either have a democracy and take the chance that the people elect someone that you don't want them to elect, or you do not have a democracy, and take a chance the leaders are people the people wouldn't want to elect.

The only system that would work any better would be to put me in charge of everything.
  #27  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:56 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,067
Perhaps, but many of us are of mature years, and might not be available to offer you guidance.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #28  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:26 AM
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
I feel like a lot of people are glossing over the fact that a large part of having a top secret clearance (which the President has by nature of his job) is to not be beholden financially or otherwise to foreign interests. If he wasn't president, the current circumstantial evidence on this front would likely send him to prison for many, many years for putting our nation at risk. The only thing protecting him is the office.



I've also been wondering how in the world the Republican party can support this. I know many of them, like McConnell are just as corrupt (or more), but.. the entire party?



Speaking as someone who went through background investigations recently enough that it's all fresh, my mind boggles how he got approved for a clearance. I know, they pushed it through. I feel really bad for the CIA, FBI and whichever other agencies are responsible and accountable for the right people being cleared and the wrong ones not. They are surely doing time "in the barrel" these last few years!
Speaking of McConnell, I saw an article today that he's being Trump's wingman in a possible attempt to replace Pence as VP on the 2020 ticket.

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #29  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:57 AM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Speaking of McConnell, I saw an article today that he's being Trump's wingman in a possible attempt to replace Pence as VP on the 2020 ticket.

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk
This makes absolutely no sense. McConnel has virtually no chance to survive to and then win election as president, so the title of vice president (which is a fancy word for "useless spare" unless you're attempting the Biden->President route) would be a massive downgrade to his current position. And by massive, I mean most powerful human on earth to literally an insurance policy with no actual authority except sometimes maybe a tiebreaker.

Remember, the Senate is more powerful than the presidency, though it has loaned a lot of that power to the office of the executive. If sufficiently motivated, all of this (historical) executive overreach could be curtailed in short order and McConnel could reassert his real power.

Why bother with VP when he's already at the top? Only reasonable if he thinks he's going to loose his congressional seat, and that doesn't seem likely from where I'm sitting. I hope Moscow McTurtle gets crucified, but that doesn't seem likely.
  #30  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:16 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Iím bumping this thread after a few weeks.

Thereís reporting Iím seeing on TV that speculates that Deutsche Bank has confirmed that they have Trumpís tax returns in the course of a House lawsuit (his name is redacted, but a filing with the court does confirm that they are in possession of the returns for a certain person and his family members).

Thereís further speculation that Deutsche Bank also has a series of loans for Trump which included Russian oligarchs as co-signers.

Deutsche Bank has already been identified as a means of Russian money laundering. The plot continues...

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/inv...ing/index.html
  #31  
Old 08-28-2019, 10:14 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
By the way, does past drug use rule someone out of holding a top-secret clearance? Or is that merely a factor that can be considered by the independent, non-partisan vetting agency?
Since this part wasn't answered - it is a factor that will be evaluated as part of the security clearance process.

My understanding is that if you disclose the past drug use and can show that you have quit, it's generally OK. If you don't tell them and they find out, that's probably very bad. Generally, having any secrets or weakness that someone can use to pressure you to do stuff is a security risk.

Last edited by scr4; 08-28-2019 at 10:17 AM.
  #32  
Old 08-28-2019, 10:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Iím bumping this thread after a few weeks.

Thereís reporting Iím seeing on TV that speculates that Deutsche Bank has confirmed that they have Trumpís tax returns in the course of a House lawsuit (his name is redacted, but a filing with the court does confirm that they are in possession of the returns for a certain person and his family members).

Thereís further speculation that Deutsche Bank also has a series of loans for Trump which included Russian oligarchs as co-signers.

Deutsche Bank has already been identified as a means of Russian money laundering. The plot continues...

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/inv...ing/index.html
"Speculation" = liberal fantasy

  #33  
Old 08-28-2019, 11:36 AM
Borborygmi's Avatar
Borborygmi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: the worst timeline
Posts: 969
Ah, the classic liberal fantasy in which Russian oligarchs have compromised our president. A windmill turns quietly in the background. Off in the distance, a Mexican child can be seen receiving a flu shot.
  #34  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:26 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borborygmi View Post
Ah, the classic liberal fantasy in which Russian oligarchs have compromised our president. A windmill turns quietly in the background. Off in the distance, a Mexican child can be seen receiving a flu shot.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you of the opinion that Trump has not been compromised by the Russians?
  #35  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:33 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"Speculation" = liberal fantasy
Thank you (well, not with the snark, but with the confirmation that this is speculation, the word I chose).

I actually tried to edit my post because, while I found a link to Deutsche bank money laundering Russian money, there was nothing confirming the Russian co-signing (and, indeed, O'Donnell - who I am not really a fan of; it was in the background while I surfed the Dope and waited for the 11th Hour, a show I do like because it largely consists of interviews with the reporters who wrote the biggest stories of the day - confirmed that he had only been told the info by one source and that neither he nor NBC had confirmed it). It was late, I was too late to edit, I didn't want to double post...

Having said that, liberal fantasy is, in my opinion, a step too far. I've already cited the fact that Deutsche Bank was a means to launder Russian money. It's already shown that Deutsche Bank eventually became the only bank who would loan Trump money. And we know how much Trump defers to Russia. And there's recent reporting that Trump engaged in suspicious banking activities that were covered up by Deutsche officials.
Quote:
Several financial moves by legal entities controlled by Donald Trump and Jared Kushner between 2016 and 2017 triggered suspicious activity alerts inside Deutsche Bank, a major lender to the Trump family, according to a report in the New York Times.
The newspaper said it had been in touch with five existing or former Deutsche Bank employees, one of whom spoke on the record. They said they had been alerted to possible illicit activity when they were working in the team responsible for combating money laundering, and had recommended the federal government be notified.
These dots aren't too far away to be connected, if only as a form of speculation.
  #36  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Thank you (well, not with the snark, but with the confirmation that this is speculation, the word I chose). ...
The word you chose was "reporting". If what O'Donnell did qualifies in your mind, that goes a long ways towards explaining the mess we're in as a country. The 4th Estate went off the rails sometime back in 2016 and has never recovered.
  #37  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:01 PM
Borborygmi's Avatar
Borborygmi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: the worst timeline
Posts: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you of the opinion that Trump has not been compromised by the Russians?
That admittedly was just a drive-by post, eyerolling at the equivalence being made of investigative leads into a sitting president's malfeasance with some sort of partisan wishful thinking, as if this were anything but a necessary grim investigation. For the record, I believe that Trump is compromised by Russia six ways from Sunday.
  #38  
Old 08-28-2019, 02:41 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,067
Its entirely fair to point out that just because there is smoke doesn't mean fire, necessarily. We all know incidents when suspicions were investigated, fully and openly, and found to be baseless. All well and good. But the operative words are "fully and openly". When the potential crux of the corrupt biscuit furiously works to prevent such investigation, suspicions gain legitimate weight. They are not proven, but they are substantiated. Trump may be the innocent virgin at the center of the clusterfuck. Can't say that isn't possible!

And there are other explanations than a compromised President. He may, for instance, have developed a very positive approval of Mr Putin. After all, he has had plenty of opportunities to bask in his presence and access his character. Some private conversations, quite possibly exchanges in perfect candor and honesty, man to man. Didn't Putin directly and personally assure Darth Shit-for-Brains that Russia had nothing to do with any alleged "interference"? There is no more authoritative source in Russia! Trump has frequently expressed his admiration, Putin's "brass balls" that clank when he walks. ('Course, ice probably does too, but less melodiously....)

By the same token, maybe Douchey Bank simply sees something that evades other bankers, that Trump is a splendid investment opportunity and they are eager to take advantage of his acute business savvy. Trump Steaks, Trump University, the Bed Bug Resort Chain, all stand as monuments to bold entrepreneurial adventures! Who can say for sure that Russian investors don't see the same things the Douchey Bank does, and just want to get in on a sound investment!

Me, I kinda doubt it. Ever since the Republican Convention, when Jar-Jar Binks gave the nominating speech....

Last edited by elucidator; 08-28-2019 at 02:45 PM. Reason: Cogito ergo duh.
  #39  
Old 08-28-2019, 03:10 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,247
nm answered already

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-28-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #40  
Old 08-28-2019, 04:07 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The word you chose was "reporting". If what O'Donnell did qualifies in your mind, that goes a long ways towards explaining the mess we're in as a country. The 4th Estate went off the rails sometime back in 2016 and has never recovered.
Let's play that semantic game, shall we?

I wrote

Quote:
There’s reporting I’m seeing on TV that speculates that Deutsche Bank has confirmed that they have Trump’s tax returns in the course of a House lawsuit (his name is redacted, but a filing with the court does confirm that they are in possession of the returns for a certain person and his family members).

There’s further speculation that Deutsche Bank also has a series of loans for Trump which included Russian oligarchs as co-signers.
I stand by that. There is, in fact, "reporting" that speculates that Deutsche Bank has confirmed that they have Trump's tax returns (the use of 'speculates' is because the reporting is not based on an outright admission, but rather a redacted confirmation that Deutsche Bank does, actually, have the taxes of some unnamed individual after a court required them to confirm, under seal, whether they have Trump's returns, which was after Deutsche lawyers told the judges in open court that they were prevented from even confirming whether or not they had the tax returns as a predicate to deciding whether they had to be turned over to the House of Reps).

You don't like Lawrence O'Donnell? Fine, I'm not a huge fan, too.

So, here's more reporting on this issue:
Deutsche Bank says it has Trump-related tax records Congress wants
Deutsche Bank admits it has Trump’s tax returns
Deutsche Bank has Trump-related tax returns sought by House Democrats
Deutsche Bank Tells Court It Has Some Tax Returns Related to Trump Inquiry

I also said that there is further speculation about Russian co-signers. This has not been confirmed in reporting; it's just a rumor at this point. Did I not make that clear?

Last edited by Moriarty; 08-28-2019 at 04:10 PM.
  #41  
Old 08-28-2019, 04:32 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The word you chose was "reporting". If what O'Donnell did qualifies in your mind, that goes a long ways towards explaining the mess we're in as a country. The 4th Estate went off the rails sometime back in 2016 and has never recovered.
O'Donnell made it very clear that the statement about Russian co-signers to Trump loans was from a single source and that (IIRC) neither the source nor O'Donnell had seen any documents to that effect. Me, I would have tried to resist the desire to get out a scoop and held off until I had confirmation from multiple sources or a copy of the relevant documentation, but O'Donnell has left his ass hanging out on this and it's his ass (not to mention MSNBC's) that will be smacked if the story turns out to be false. Which would be a political win for you and your ilk, so I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about here.
  #42  
Old 08-28-2019, 04:33 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
For example, let's look at tax fraud. I'm under the impression that the IRS is pretty good at identifying tax fraud. If Trump has filed a fraudulent tax return, then why is there going to be some sudden relevant evidence that the IRS has missed?
Isn't it possible that, if Trump lied in his tax returns and the IRS didn't notice, but if it's made public, someone else may see it and know it to be a lie? E.g. if someone had business dealings with Trump, and Trump failed to report it to the IRS.

Last edited by scr4; 08-28-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #43  
Old 08-28-2019, 06:42 PM
bizzwire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right behind....YOUR EAR!
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Of course they would. There is nothing he could do to make the Republicans disavow him because they are scared shitless of his base.
When they learn that heís not a billionaire and is in hock to the Russian mob, heíll lose some of his luster with the "temporarily distressed millionaires" who voted for him
  #44  
Old 08-28-2019, 07:48 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
O'Donnell made it very clear that the statement about Russian co-signers to Trump loans was from a single source and that (IIRC) neither the source nor O'Donnell had seen any documents to that effect. ...
He should have just Faux newsed it and said that "people were saying". You can say anything you want if you preface it that way. It's called a Republican blanket. (It's also called Faux newsing.)
  #45  
Old 08-28-2019, 09:05 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,990
O'Donnell just issued an apology and a retraction. Doing the right thing to right the wrong thing.

For now.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 08-28-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #46  
Old 08-28-2019, 09:07 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
HurricaneDitka, youíll be happy to know that Lawrence OíDonnell has withdrawn his speculation about Russian co-signers in response to a letter from the White House threatening litigation. Iíll also try to do better next time.

Which hardly exonerates Trump against the charge that he was obtaining loans from Deutsche Bank that weíre being funded by Russian oligarchs. I mean, Trump was only getting money from Deutsche. And Deutsche was laundering Russian money.
  #47  
Old 08-28-2019, 09:29 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,247
Aspenglow and Moriarty,

Classy posts, both of you.
  #48  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:01 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
O'Donnell just issued an apology and a retraction. Doing the right thing to right the wrong thing.

For now.
Perhaps I misheard, but my impression was that while O'Donnell did issue an apology (for violating journalistic ethics and NBC/MSNBC policy), he did not exactly retract the story in the sense of saying it was false. At the moment it remains, to borrow a Scottish legal term, "not proven."
  #49  
Old 08-29-2019, 07:20 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Perhaps I misheard, but my impression was that while O'Donnell did issue an apology (for violating journalistic ethics and NBC/MSNBC policy), he did not exactly retract the story in the sense of saying it was false. At the moment it remains, to borrow a Scottish legal term, "not proven."
His statement was:

  #50  
Old 08-29-2019, 08:13 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,690
What he did--that kind of innuendo--is something Trump and Fox do constantly on a daily basis. It is shamelessly the bread-and-butter of their rhetoric. At least he had enough principles to retract it, which is something Trump and his brain handlers at Fox pretty much never do.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017