This has NOTHING to do with ‘Sympathetic Obama people’, AND everything to do with our current CIC.
And this is a lot of the problem with current attitudes. Those that want justice aren’t doing it for Obama or Clinton. They are doing it because trump needs to be held to the standards of ANY POTUS.
Wasn’t it initially funded by Ted Cruz, until he saw the light and jumped on the Trumpwagon?
For most practical purposes, in the real world and dealing with the impressionable and short-term memory masses, those are the same statement.
Over time, you morph the public debate from, “Oh my god, the President is publicly encouraging the Russians to infiltrate the private communications of his opponent and spread that to the general public!” to “Oh my god, this one company released a document asserting that the President was working with Russia, and that’s what this is all about!” The first is difficult to explain away. The latter gives you a nice scapegoat to sacrifice and call everything clear.
No, it was originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon, but that’s really beside the point. Everyone knew it was conservative oppo research started during the primary and picked up by liberals for the general, but the discovery of the connection to the Clinton campaign specifically gave the conservative media a chance to create a new narrative – that the dossier is political in nature and therefore the Trump/Russia investigation is a political witch hunt. Just look at this horribly written opinion piece from Fox:
The layers of delusion are astounding, but this is what conservatives are being instructed to think.
Worrying, if true:
Apparently, a week or two after it was announced that Deutsche had been issued subpoenas by Mueller, their fines were waived by the Executive branch.
This would seem to be a fine for rigging global interest rates, rather than for money laundering, but it’s still $2.12 billion back to the company:
I think it’s safe to say that it needs to be investigated how this decision came to be made.
Really? Per the article, the fines weren’t permanently waived, they were just postponed for 3 years, and Deutschebank wasn’t singled out, it was all 5 banks fined for the LIBOR thing, and the postponement is, oddly for Trump, just a continuation of an Obama era postponement. Furthermore, there’s really no suggested mechanism by which Trump could benefit re: the Mueller investigation, short of some handshake agreement for the bank to somehow withhold documents, which nobody has even suggested took place.
This feels like a page out of a Republican playbook, speculating about a conspiracy and then demanding an investigation to find evidence of it.
The article doesn’t say anything at all about fines being waived or postponed.
The article says that “part of the punishment” was waived for 3 years. That part is not any fines but rather “Under laws designed to protect retirement savings, financial firms whose affiliates have been convicted of violating securities statutes are effectively barred from the lucrative business of managing those savings.”
It’s not clear how much potentially lost revenue was involved.
Clearly I’m pretty ignorant about this punishment, the waivers, and how banks work in general, but I don’t think any of that detracts from my point. This feels a bit like Uranium One, point out a bunch of innocuous facts about a deal, heavily imply that a complicated conspiracy could possibly explain those facts, and then demand an investigation to find evidence of said conspiracy.
I didn’t see the line that it was a delay not a full waiver, so you may be correct that I misinterpreted this.
However, I could argue, financially, that an extension is very much like a steep reduction. If I give you $1b today, then I am out $1b. If I give you $1b in a year, then I will have made ~8% on it in investments. I earn $80m, lose the $1b, and so I’m only out $920m in the long run. If I get to keep it for 3 years, then I have only lost $740m, because I will have made $260m on the capital over that term.
A 3 year extension on a $2.12 billion fine is equivalent to a reduction by $551m, if I am doing my math right.
That said, it could well be that it was always expected that the banks wouldn’t be able to hand over all of that money on time. It might be normal to put them on some sort of payment schedule and to keep waiving the full amount every time it’s about to come due, to keep them on the tap. The fine may have been set with the expectation that it would be paid off over many years.
But it should also be said that with Trump’s financial and legal entanglement, it’s worth being certain that he was not a part of this decision.
It doesn’t detract from your point. But it’s worth being factual. (For some reason Sage Rat persists in discussing the supposed deferred fines. :shrug: )
Based on F-P’s correction and trying to read the announcement on the federal register, it may be more like they were given a deadline to comply with some standard, and this is an extension of the deadline. I don’t know, it’s all way beyond my financial literacy.
But this isn’t some nebulous claim that Trump benefits financially from an executive action, which I’m sure he does all the time, based on his refusal to divest himself. This is a specific accusation that this is some kind of quid pro quo in connection with the Mueller investigation. There’s absolutely no evidence of that, nor is there any mechanism suggested by which it could happen.
In any case, if anyone’s going to investigate whether executive actions like this sought to hinder Mueller’s investigation, it’s going to be Mueller. Which makes these rumblings about a conspiracy and calls to investigate it even more pointless.
I’m happy to have my own ignorance fought. I was typing when you posted the further clarification.
Well I guess that’s the “some reason”. My apologies for any negative implication.
[FWIW, I think you are one of the best posters posting to these Russia threads.]
Steve Bannon’s lawyers say he will be fully cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Am I reading too much into Kushner’s newfound interest in prison reform? I mean, I understand that he has already solved the problems in the middle east, and the opioid epidemic, but making prisons more pleasant is not usually a big part of the GOP platform. It’s being spun as an interest of his because his father is a felon, but I love to think that he has some personal interest in the topic as well.
(I’m probably reading too much into it!)
Of course. He has nothing left to lose, and sweet revenge to gain.
Huh. Not at all surprised about Bannon’s new-found appreciation of the Deep State. :rolleyes:
Not sure this makes a difference, but FWIW, your link is about the House intelligence Committee, not Mueller’s probe.
…in which Republicans attempt to distract with ‘leaks’ at every opportunity and Democrats actually try to get at the root of the problem. Interesting theater, but nothing more. I’m waiting for Mueller to get around to Bannon’s wily ass.
Less than a year to go until it’s the House Judiciary Committee working the problem.