Trump, family to see 'substantial portions' of House subpoenas to banks

[mogandave]

 
This a huge leap...
 
First, this thread is about getting financial documents from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, not trump's tax returns, that's a separate topic.
 
Second, I can't speak for "the press", or their willingness to issue apologies. When found to be incorrect they often print corrections.
 
Third, and you're presented a fairly low bar for "support" - "whaddya want, he's not a crook, so far", what does "support" mean? Donate to his campaign? Attend a rally? Buy a MAGA hat? Vote for him? Hmm, all no.
 
 
In the end, EVERYTHING will come out, that's just a given. Might it all be revealed tomorrow? Of course not. But it will all come out.
 
Assuming no major financial crimes why not just pull the band-aid off quickly, and cooperate? Fighting every step signals to most an intent to obstruct, and guilt. Claiming privacy, or Executive Privilege is not acceptable.
 

Everything almost never comes out about anything. We (historically) pretty much only see what the press wants us to see.

I think it fair to assume there are many people who do not have Trump’s best interest, the best interest of the country, or the best interest of justice at heart.

Their purpose is only to bring Trump down. They have no interest in him being exonerated, and they will not stop until he is out of office. Nothing good can come from Trump cooperating with them.

I generally agree, that if one has nothing to hide, they should be completely open. If the police stop me in my car, or come to my home and want to search it (without probable cause) I would let them. But if I thought they were out to get me, I would not.

If you are under investigation for a crime, most any attorney will tell you not to cooperate with the police or the prosecution.

It could be he’s just fantasizing, but I believe Trump thinks people are out to get him.

[jimmyyy]

Besides pumping up the Orange Man bad thing; has any democrat done anything since being in the majority of the house of representatives that improves the lives of American's.  Anything???????  Orange man Bad does not help the populous.  I for one hope they keep up orange man bad, it assures he reelection and the loss of the majority for the democrats.

[mogandave]

I for one hope they keep up orange man bad, it assures he reelection and the loss of the majority for the democrats.

I wouldn’t bet on it. The elites are seething with hate of Trump, and when you combine that with their typical race baiting, get the rich, government handouts and identity politics they could do pretty well.

Keep in mind, a fair percentage of the population consider AOC a highly educated, well informed young woman, and but for her age, a contender for the Democrat Presidential nomination.

[Briggsy]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The elites are seething with hate of Trump

Just for laughs, name just one "Elite" who you believe is seething with hate of Trump. I won't even ask for a single scrap of supporting evidence. Go on, make me laugh.

[mogandave]

Just for laughs, name just one "Elite" who you believe is seething with hate of Trump. I won't even ask for a single scrap of supporting evidence. Go on, make me laugh.

 

Hillary Clinton?

Robert DeNiro?

Adam Schiff?

Stephan Colbert?

 

Most everyone in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, News, Television etc...

[watcharacters]

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

I’m not a tax evader, but I would not want ten years of my returns under a microscope.

 

And you are not the POTUS.

 

 

[mogandave]

Just for laughs, name just one "Elite" who you believe is seething with hate of Trump. I won't even ask for a single scrap of supporting evidence. Go on, make me laugh.

Just for laughs, what is your opinion of AOC?

[Briggsy]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Just for laughs, what is your opinion of AOC?

Young, massively overhyped, inexperienced, utopian ideas, used as a figure of hate by Fox, Hannity, etc to galvanise support for Trump in the same misogynistic way they have previously used HRC, Stormy Daniels and many other non-white or non-male bogey figures.

[mogandave]

Young, massively overhyped, inexperienced, utopian ideas, used as a figure of hate by Fox, Hannity, etc to galvanise support for Trump in the same misogynistic way they have previously used HRC, Stormy Daniels and many other non-white or non-male bogey figures.

Oh, a victim as it were...

[soalbundy]

18 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Interesting.

 

So the 'crime' of being a Russian Spy didn't pan out.

 

And the 'crime' of obstruction isn't panning out.

 

The 'crime' of campaign finance violation for a payment to Stormy isn't panning out.

 

So now it's a matter of forgetting the idea of finding a crime and investigating it. They are now investigating the person looking for a crime. 

 

How very un-American.

The fat lady is still singing, especially the verse about obstruction.

[soalbundy]

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I don't think anyone has ever accused Trump of being a "Russian spy".  But there has been considerable evidence to suggest he may be compromised to Russia in some way, and thus is under the thrall of Putin.

 

It probably would have panned out if the Justice Department didn't shortcut Mueller's' inquiry by adopting the legal position that they will not indict a sitting U.S. president on criminal charges... period.  Others can try...and perhaps New York will. But the U.S. Justice Department will not.

 

If I'm not mistaken, that sordid little episode is part of the reason why Cohen is going to prison, among his other misdeeds.  As for Trump's role in that, I personally haven't ever seen any official explanation as to why he hasn't been cited by the FEC, even if not prosecuted by the Justice Department, for that caper.

 

 

What's un-American is having a president who thinks he's above the law and acts like it on a regular basis... Who doesn't consider himself or his administration subject to Congressional oversight as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. And who lies and misrepresents so frequently about all matters in his orbit that it's virtually impossible for any thinking person to believe a word he says.

 

He even cheats playing against himself in golf

[mogandave]

 
And you are not the POTUS.
 
 

I think an argument can be made to make all tax returns and bank records public, but I don’t believe a citizen should be compelled provide anything they are not legally bound to provide, nor do I think a citizen should be persecuted for choosing not too.

I wonder how worked up you got when...never-mind.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

I think an argument can be made to make all tax returns and bank records public, but I don’t believe a citizen should be compelled provide anything they are not legally bound to provide, nor do I think a itizen should be persecuted for choosing not too.
 

 

 

You seem to be missing out on the federal law that gives congress the right to obtain and review his tax returns....

 

 

Quote

 

By law, taxpayer information is supposed to remain confidential. But as University of Virginia law professor George Yin, author of a 2017 article on the law, told NPR, Congress didn't like being dependent on the executive branch to provide tax records.

When the "committee access" provision, as it's known, became law in 1924, Congress had been dealing with taxpayers' information in the Teapot Dome scandal afflicting the Harding administration and in a controversy involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Like Trump, he had served in government while refusing to avoid conflicts of interest by letting go of his holdings.

The committee access provision has rarely been invoked, but here's how it would work:

1. For the party in control of the House or Senate, making the request is easy. It would come from the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (the House panel that writes tax law), Senate Finance Committee or Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats have been badgering the Republican chairs of those panels to act since February 2017 without success.
2. Once a request is made, no floor action is necessary. The request would go to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS — not to the taxpayer in the Oval Office, who would officially be out of the loop. Yin said the 1924 law "gave the tax committees the unqualified right to request the tax returns of any taxpayer."
3. What would happen next is uncharted territory. Based on recent events, Trump might deploy Justice Department lawyers, and perhaps private lawyers, to fight the request in court. The process might resemble the not-infrequent legal battles over congressional subpoenas for executive branch documents. But the committee access provision has never been before a federal judge.

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/656610711/congress-really-can-demand-and-get-trumps-tax-returns-here-s-how

[mogandave]

 
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/656610711/congress-really-can-demand-and-get-trumps-tax-returns-here-s-how

I would liken a professor talking on NPR to an NRA executive going on Rush Limbaugh using a hundred year old statute to prove Trump did not have to turn anything over.

It seems to me if the law was clear he had to turn them over, it would be all over the media, unless of course they are all protecting him.

[mogandave]

He even cheats playing against himself in golf

Well if the obstruction falls through that will be the next thing you guys can go after him for, it has to be illegal somewhere...

[lannarebirth]

15 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Not if the Republican-stacked Supreme Court ends up ruling against all Congressional requests for access to the various documents that would prove or disprove the allegations... citing deference to presidential authority and powers, which the current majority seems very inclined to do.

 

I reread the OP. I didn't see any allegations. What are they again?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

It seems to me if the law was clear he had to turn them over, it would be all over the media, unless of course they are all protecting him.

 

 

 

The federal law is very clear, and plainly written without any exceptions...

 

But the fact is, it hasn't been needed much in past decades because past presidential candidates and presidents in modern times have ALWAYS disclosed their federal tax returns....

 

Trump is a singular exception to that longstanding practice, and thus as a result, the old federal law has to be brought to bear, as have various legislative initiatives at the state level regarding candidate disclosure of tax returns.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/08/trump-tax-returns-must-go-congress-mnuchin-defying-federal-law-column/1131899001/

 

Quote

The law in this case is unambiguous. It clearly states that the Secretary of Treasury “shall furnish . . . any return or return information” requested in writing by the House Ways and Means Committee. Instead of complying with this requirement, the secretary asserted that he was not fulfilling the request on the grounds that he had determined that the “request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.” This is not a determination the secretary is empowered to make, and it is also not correct.

 

Quote

Particularly troubling facts specific to Trump provide additional compelling justifications for congressional oversight. News reporting suggests that the Trump family, including the president, engaged in an elaborate, decades-long scheme to minimize tax liability. Trump’s sister, a former federal judge, retired from the bench just 10 days after a judicial panel began an inquiry into her role in the scheme; her retirement ended that inquiry. In addition, as we recently discovered, the current head of the IRS has earned as much as $1 million in income from a rental property he owns — at a Trump-branded development. Only willful blindness would allow Congress to simply assume all is well.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I reread the OP. I didn't see any allegations. What are they again?

 

Here's just the tip of the iceberg, as an example:

 

Quote

 

This need is particularly acute in the case of a president who has decided, unlike every president before him, to retain a large network of privately-held business interests that expose him to corruption risks all over the world. The public record alone discloses more than 1,400 points of contact during Trump's first two years in office involving the government, those trying to influence it, and the Trump Organization.
 

Particularly troubling facts specific to Trump provide additional compelling justifications for congressional oversight. News reporting suggests that the Trump family, including the president, engaged in an elaborate, decades-long scheme to minimize tax liability. Trump’s sister, a former federal judge, retired from the bench just 10 days after a judicial panel began an inquiry into her role in the scheme; her retirement ended that inquiry. In addition, as we recently discovered, the current head of the IRS has earned as much as $1 million in income from a rental property he owns — at a Trump-branded development. Only willful blindness would allow Congress to simply assume all is well.

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/08/trump-tax-returns-must-go-congress-mnuchin-defying-federal-law-column/1131899001/

 

And that doesn't even mention the emoluments cases against Trump that are pending in various courts in connection with Trump receiving foreign income from various of his property holdings.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-1226687
 

Quote

 

For instance, during Trump’s inauguration in 2017, lobbyists working for the Saudi government paid more than $270,000 to put U.S. veterans up in hotel rooms at the Trump hotel in D.C. The move was part of an effort to defeat legislation that allows victims to pursue lawsuits against the Saudi regime over its alleged involvement in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.
 

While the main focus of the lawsuit has been on the influence foreign governments could wield through their patronage of Trump businesses, it also targets the money Trump-branded hotels and other ventures are receiving from state officials. A lesser-known clause of the Constitution prohibits the president from being separately compensated by any state.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Here's just the tip of the iceberg, as an example:

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/08/trump-tax-returns-must-go-congress-mnuchin-defying-federal-law-column/1131899001/

 

And that doesn't even mention the emoluments cases against Trump that are pending in various courts in connection with Trump receiving foreign income from various of his property holdings.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-1226687
 

 

 

 

OK, but then there's this:

 

http://money.com/money/5188095/donald-trump-net-worth-2018/

 

Not mutually exclusive of course. He could be offsetting falling revenues with other revenues from entities seeking to curry favor, but that's basically how the Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative worked so there's precedent for that.

[mogandave]

 

You should tell the New York Times...

[pedro01]

12 hours ago, Tug said:

Hey Pedro you forgot me!!!! I think he connivied with a hostile power to rig the election I do know that his policy’s (if you can call it that)are a gift from hevan To the russan federation have seen with my owne eyes him undercutting the very institutions that keep  us safe I did see him blab state secrets to a hostile foreign power so sure lots of us think he is compermised we also know he is a lousy business man on an epic scale no wonder he doesent want his finances out there lol

Then you are delusional.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

OK, but then there's this:

 

http://money.com/money/5188095/donald-trump-net-worth-2018/

 

Not mutually exclusive of course. He could be offsetting falling revenues with other revenues from entities seeking to curry favor, but that's basically how the Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative worked so there's precedent for that.

You got a real obsession with the Clinton foundation. You make all kinds of allegations but never back it up with any evidence. What evidence can you link to?

[mtls2005]

Latest, ties to Justice Kennedy, his son, and debts for Kavanaugh paid off.

 

Easy to understand why trump wants to hide this.

 

 

Deutsche Bank employees say leaders dismissed concerns about suspicious Trump transactions

 

In 2016 and 2017, computer systems that screen for potential money laundering at Deutsche Bank flagged transactions conducted by legal entities owned by President Donald Trump and White House adviser Jared Kushner as suspicious.

 

"Former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws ... [and] said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients,” according to the Times.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/19/18631628/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner-suspicious-transactions-ignore

[mogandave]

Former employees....

When I have a suspicious transaction the bank calls me, anyone else?

[mtls2005]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

Former employees....

When I have a suspicious transaction the bank calls me, anyone else?

 

Depends, are you laundering money for Russians? Paying off Russian loans? Involved in some global criminal enterprise?

 

If so, then yes.

 

That said, financial institutions in the U.S. have a legal obligation to monitor, and report, suspicious activity (SAR, STR). That is unless it involves a high-value "customer" apparently.

 

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

On 5/10/2019 at 1:19 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

I reread the OP. I didn't see any allegations. What are they again?

 

Are you sure you read, and re-read the OP?

 

"The case is Trump et al v. Deutsche Bank AG et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-03826."

 

This is between trump at al (kushner) and Deutsche Bank and CapitalOne.

 

You'll have to ask trump et al. about any "allegations".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

 
Depends, are you laundering money for Russians? Paying off Russian loans? Involved in some global criminal enterprise?
 
If so, then yes.
 
That said, financial institutions in the U.S. have a legal obligation to monitor, and report, suspicious activity (SAR, STR). That is unless it involves a high-value "customer" apparently.
 
 
 
 

What’s wrong with paying off a Russian loan?

In any event, you really think a huge multi-national bank would risk the damages associated with knowingly financing a money laundering based in the US?

It more likely means an ex-employee flagged something suspicious, it was reviewed deemed a legal transaction.

[soalbundy]

Just wait for the tweets

[mogandave]

Just wait for the tweets

Mayor Pete doesn’t care about the tweets.

[user46546545]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:38 AM, quandow said:

Honest men have nothing to hide. In light of the recent findings where Trump lost over $1 Billion in piss poor and shady business dealings, his finances need to be scrutinized to ensure he is not compromised. Any normal president would never take the word of a known enemy over his own security agencies, over and over again, without raising YUGE suspicion. The obvious stonewalling adds a lot of fuel to this flame. Honest men have nothing to hide.

Well said- Honesty is something that is not resident in the Trump DNA.