Jump to content
triplehorn

House investigation of possible Trump money laundering

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

My thoughts as well, TwiceHorn.  I'm very curious to see what might come of this.  My initial sense is that Roberts would act to protect the power of the court as a co-equal branch of government, and to maintain its legitimacy.  That would not bode well for the President.

Yeah, I tend to think the jurisdiction/abstention federalism issue "trumps" if you will the presidential power separation of powers issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest point of any of this still remains this.

New York absolutely despises Dotard. They will gladly prosecute him. They will have the goods on him. He will not skate free on this. Every dumb thing has done will come to light in this investigation. That may sound simplistic, but Dotard is reviled in a way that few others are here. 

Edited by UpperWestside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

The biggest point of any of this still remains this.

New York absolutely despises Dotard. They will gladly prosecute him. They will have the goods on him. He will not skate free on this. Every dumb thing has done will come to light in this investigation. That may sound simplistic, but Dotard is reviled in a way that few others are here. 

Yep.  As much as the yokels in the south and flyover states love his ass, New York despises him.  I love it.  Him and his band of grifters are fucked in NY.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit that follows on the heels of a NYTimes article that reported that Deutsche Bank says they do not have Trump's tax returns. Earlier this year when they said they had returns, they were cagey about whose returns were in their possession. Folks in the comments below Enrich's tweet kept referencing Justice Kennedy and his son, but I'm not familiar with the relationship there and will have to suss it out.

Anyway:

First is the NYT tweet/link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/business/deutsche-bank-trump-tax-returns.html

And then the follow up:

 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is a bit that follows on the heels of a NYTimes article that reported that Deutsche Bank says they do not have Trump's tax returns. Earlier this year when they said they had returns, they were cagey about whose returns were in their possession. Folks in the comments below Enrich's tweet kept referencing Justice Kennedy and his son, but I'm not familiar with the relationship there and will have to suss it out.

Anyway:

First is the NYT tweet/link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/business/deutsche-bank-trump-tax-returns.html

And then the follow up:

 

What fuckery if true.  The simple matter here would be to compare filed tax returns to the IRS vs whatever 'copy' of tax returns Trump submitted to banks applying for loans.  Trump's MO is to minimize income/debt for the IRS and potentially reverse the outlay when applying for a loan - i.e. commit bank fraud.  This would appear to be a clear attempt to destroy evidence of fraud in the process of Trump obtaining over a billion in loans from DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind is that Mueller reportedly subpoenaed Trump/Deutsche Bank financials back in 2017.  So potentially Mueller already acquired what others are trying to destroy after the fact.  Congress should be determined to see what Mueller got.

That move by Mueller was Trump's infamous 'red line' and Trump personal atty Jay Sekulow claimed no such subpoenas we're issued by Mueller.  Thank for the info, Jay!

Mueller reportedly subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on Trump and his family, Trump lawyer denies

 

Edited by triplehorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 10:54 PM, UpperWestside said:

The biggest point of any of this still remains this.

New York absolutely despises Dotard. They will gladly prosecute him. They will have the goods on him. He will not skate free on this. Every dumb thing has done will come to light in this investigation. That may sound simplistic, but Dotard is reviled in a way that few others are here. 

There was always more than enough public information on DJ and his business dealing prior to the 2016 election cycle if these guys and the media would have done their damn jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

There was always more than enough public information on DJ and his business dealing prior to the 2016 election cycle if these guys and the media would have done their damn jobs. 

yeah, but then he opens his mouth or tweets something dumb and look--squirrel!  Thing is, nothing goes away, it just tacks on.  So there's this pile of illicit shit on the WH lawn that he just squirrel's his way around everyday. 

Edited by Mdhorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 7:26 AM, triplehorn said:

What fuckery if true.  The simple matter here would be to compare filed tax returns to the IRS vs whatever 'copy' of tax returns Trump submitted to banks applying for loans.  Trump's MO is to minimize income/debt for the IRS and potentially reverse the outlay when applying for a loan - i.e. commit bank fraud.  This would appear to be a clear attempt to destroy evidence of fraud in the process of Trump obtaining over a billion in loans from DB.

Right on cue, reporting today from ProPublica substantiated by content obtained vis FOIA:

This is the best explanation as to why Deutsche Bank now reports their copies of Trump tax returns have 'disappeared.'  The returns Trump submitted for his $1B in DB loans set side by side with the tax returns filed to the IRS almost assuredly reveal discrepancies that optimize his facing income/debt ratio depending on whether he's paying taxes or applying for loans.  Tax fraud, bank fraud, or both.

Quote

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.

A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”

New York City’s property tax forms state that the person signing them “affirms the truth of the statements made” and that “false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tangent, but until some of the court dates/deadlines arrive, it is a related one. In the House today H.R.2513 (The Corporate Transparency Act) will be discussed by the Committee on Rules. Here is the intro to the bill:

Quote

To ensure that persons who form corporations or limited liability companies in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations or limited liability companies, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations and limited liability companies for criminal gain, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations and limited liability companies, and for other purposes.

Here is a link to the PDF: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr2513rh/pdf/BILLS-116hr2513rh.pdf

Here is a link to the notes/background: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-116hrpt227/pdf/CRPT-116hrpt227.pdf

Confession: haven't read the entire document yet. Will have to wait til at least this evening, but I saw that one amendment strikes the reporting mandate on small businesses. Reminded me of the small cash businesses in the movie, 'The Accountant.' On the one hand, onerous paperwork drowns small businesses, on the other hand small businesses fly under the radar. Like pizza parlors!! (j/k)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ YES.  This is so vitally important right now.  It's long overdue, and now has metastasized into having real time urgent national security implications.

Transnational criminality involving global banking and corporations, large and small, and mass money laundering, is the story of our time.

It's the lifeblood that both sustains the global markets tied to human misery, and the river that undercuts societies and systems of government that progress from the foundation of the rule of law.  darkness versus light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the extra staff required to keep up with regulations, the cost estimate is around $20-$30 million per year but some of that will be recovered through fines and something else, I think it was civil asset forfeiture. The Rules meeting was this evening-5:00 EST, so no info is available yet but I'm going to try and monitor its progress. For all DJ complains about the House, they have been working on a variety of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're interested in quick-hitters on bills, I think govtrack.us is pretty cool.  You can get to text and amendments and whatnot, but the bird's-eye view of it is pretty interesting and well done, I think.

Also has links to your own congresscritters for comment.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2513

They give it a 2% passage prognosis.

Senate companion.  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1978

Also, the ABA's comments in opposition are cogent.  Be careful what you wish for, this may not be intended to be, but will be a massive aid to the surveillance state.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you're interested in quick-hitters on bills, I think govtrack.us is pretty cool.  You can get to text and amendments and whatnot, but the bird's-eye view of it is pretty interesting and well done, I think.

Also has links to your own congresscritters for comment.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2513

They give it a 2% passage prognosis.

Senate companion.  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1978

Also, the ABA's comments in opposition are cogent.  Be careful what you wish for, this may not be intended to be, but will be a massive aid to the surveillance state.

I believe the ACLU opposed this as well but they are always bitching about stuff only people with something to hide care about, so what do they know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the info and links folks! I have some reading to do.

@jimmyjazz- I suppose if one is immersed in Fox News, one wouldn't really understand what is happening, but another issue is that these mobsters are not spraying bullets like Al Capone and many people do not grasp how insidious, expensive, and entangled the Russian mob is. Others actually like the Russian connection, especially the nationalism and white power. They underestimate the fist that is coming for their face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be more formal reporting coming out shortly, but here's a thread on the Second Circuit hearing oral arguments re Trump's tax returns being turned over to Manhattan DA (not SDNY, not NYAG)

Quote

[...]

[...]

[...]

cont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 5:57 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is a bit that follows on the heels of a NYTimes article that reported that Deutsche Bank says they do not have Trump's tax returns. Earlier this year when they said they had returns, they were cagey about whose returns were in their possession. Folks in the comments below Enrich's tweet kept referencing Justice Kennedy and his son, but I'm not familiar with the relationship there and will have to suss it out.

Anyway:

First is the NYT tweet/link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/business/deutsche-bank-trump-tax-returns.html

And then the follow up:

 

 

I can 100% believe Douche Bank would destroy/wipe all copies of DOTARD's info. Douche bank is just as corrupt as DOTARD, and smarter. They make the sleazy shit american banks do look like 1o yr old me pitching pennies with my retarded cousin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I can 100% believe Douche Bank would destroy/wipe all copies of DOTARD's info. Douche bank is just as corrupt as DOTARD, and smarter. They make the sleazy shit american banks do look like 1o yr old me pitching pennies with my retarded cousin.

selina kyle alrighty then GIF by Gotham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

They make the sleazy shit american banks do look like 10 yr old me pitching pennies with my retarded cousin.

Oddly specific imagery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bloop.

"...Congress can seek eight years of President Trump’s tax records, according to a federal appeals court order Wednesday that moves the separation-of-powers conflict one step closer to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit let stand an earlier ruling against the president that affirmed Congress’s investigative authority on a day when the House was holding its first public impeachment inquiry hearing. Trump’s lawyers have said they are prepared to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in this case and in several other legal battles between the president and Congress.

The D.C. Circuit was responding Wednesday to Trump’s request to have a full panel of judges rehear a three-judge decision from October that rejected the president’s request to block lawmakers from subpoenaing his longtime accounting firm.The order does not mean Trump’s taxes will be turned over to Congress immediately. The D.C. Circuit previously said it would put any ruling against the president on hold for seven days to give Trump’s attorneys time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as this week to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The New York-based appeals court ruled against Trump this month and refused to block the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was already referenced in another thread, but SCOTUS ruling he has to release the returns will be met with refusal, Dems doing nothing, and the public shrugging.  Change my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This was already referenced in another thread, but SCOTUS ruling he has to release the returns will be met with refusal, Dems doing nothing, and the public shrugging.  Change my mind.

Then you have a mighty tasty ground for impeachment that not even GOP senators can ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What might the realm of possible sanctions look like after Trump runs out of appeals and still refuses to comply?

Monetary? Jail? Both? Neither?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Player said:

What might the realm of possible sanctions look like after Trump runs out of appeals and still refuses to comply?

Monetary? Jail? Both? Neither?
 

Impeachment and removal.

That's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be so awesome if he failed to comply with the NY subpoenas and they went for civil asset forfeiture and seized Trump Tower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Impeachment and removal.

That's about it.

Coup d'etat.

Sign me up.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This was already referenced in another thread, but SCOTUS ruling he has to release the returns will be met with refusal, Dems doing nothing, and the public shrugging.  Change my mind.

If the courts rule against Trump and all options are exhausted (getting there!) Mazars indicated it will comply with turning over Trump's files, for one.  Nothing Trump can do to stop it.  And I suspect Mazars has a reputation to preserve beyond defying the courts for a two-bit fraudster.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This news I think relates to a different case from Mazars but a parallel case to obtain Trump's tax filings:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the courts rule against Trump and all options are exhausted (getting there!) Mazars indicated it will comply with turning over Trump's files, for one.  Nothing Trump can do to stop it.  And I suspect Mazars has a reputation to preserve beyond defying the courts for a two-bit fraudster.
 
 


If I’m Mazars, that shit is all tee’d up and the second SCOTUS denies cert, out the door they go. Not my problem anymore. Good luck Mr. Trump, we have our own problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - TODAY - note this reveal from Trump about Mueller and his taxes:

 

There was reporting a long time ago that Mueller got Trump's taxes (as well as cooperation from Deutsche Bank with Mueller's subpoena).  Obviously Congress hasn't had access to all Mueller's evidence/grand jury materials, so that specific evidence is likely sitting there waiting to drop.  Mueller kept his report very focused on Russian election intereference and proceeded as a company man knowing he couldn't/wouldn't indict Trump per the OLC opinion.  But god knows what's teed up for Congress if/when the courts rule in favor of Congress in its attempt to gain access to it.

Of course Trump is claiming Mueller found nothing in his taxes/financials without actually allowing to be shown what Mueller saw.  Trump is breathing on borrowed time.

Edited by triplehorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 9:14 AM, Chad Fuck said:

If I’m Mazars, that shit is all tee’d up and the second SCOTUS denies cert, out the door they go. Not my problem anymore. Good luck Mr. Trump, we have our own problems.

 

Does Mazars have any exposure to financial fraud by Trump?  Could they be considered complicit in certain instances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does Mazars have any exposure to financial fraud by Trump?  Could they be considered complicit in certain instances?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Trump, they are a Phoenix so I am really really waiting to see how things shake out up to and including the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This story was posted in another thread, so reposting here:

Combined with this:

 

Those gotdam Clintons are at it again. They must be stopped! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...