Since the start of the controversy over the Mar-a-Lago raid, I have called for the release of a redacted affidavit and the appointment of a special master to sort through the seized material, including alleged attorney-client privileged material. Indeed, I felt that this was one of the four failures of Attorney General Merrick Garland in not taking proactive steps to assure that public that this was not a pretextual raid to collect sensitive material for other investigative purposes. Now, District Judge Aileen Cannon has indicated an intent to make such an appointment. It was a belated request from the Trump team but, as I wrote yesterday, it would still have considerable value in the case.
Judge Cannon filed an order Saturday morning that “The Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case.”
Such an appointment should have been done before the Justice Department reviewed the material. The Department sought a ridiculously broad search warrant and Magistrate Paul Reinhart simply signed off on the order without considering the wide array of privileged material that could be seized. It adopted language so broad that it was the legal version of Captain Jack Sparrow’s “Take what you can … Give nothing back.” It allowed the seizure of any box containing any document with any classification of any kind — and all boxes stored with that box. It also allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency.
However, a special master could still serve the same interests of transparency and legitimacy. The special master could divide these documents in classified material, unclassified but defense information, and unclassified material outside of the scope of the alleged crimes. The last category would then be returned.
That accounting could also offer basic descriptive information on the material without revealing their precise content or titles. The special master could describe material as related to national defense or nuclear weapons (as was previously leaked government sources). The government has already leaked that there was nuclear weapons material being sought. Confirming such general details can be done without giving details on the specific information or even titles for the documents to protect national security. In national security cases, including cases where I have served as counsel, such indexes and summaries are common.
Once again, as with the release of the redacted affidavit, Garland could have taken these steps to assure the public that the Department was not acting for political or improper purposes — or using excessive means to achieve those goals. He has refused every opportunity to do so while chastising those who question the integrity of his Department.
The release of the redacted affidavit shows that what Garland and his Department told the public was untrue about the inability to release a redacted affidavit without endangering the case or national security. As discussed yesterday, the redacted affidavit confirmed various key points on the legal and factual background. After opposing the release of even a single line, the government released whole pages that were manifestly suitable for public disclosure.
Once again, Garland waited to be forced to take this step rather than act on his own to address widespread concerns. His department has a documented history of officials misleading courts and filing false material in Trump-related investigations. This is yet another example of how Attorney General Garland has done little to earn the trust of almost half of the country. In this and other controversies, he has demanded respect but refused to take even modest measures to justify it.
I was fortunate to grow up in an era in America where no problem seemed too big if we came together as a nation, put our muscle, sweat, and hard work into making it happen. The genius of this nation is that it is comprised of millions of individuals who are empowered to be the best that they can be, innovate, take chances, and dream big audacious dreams. We had leadership who acted boldly and decisively. In 1961, President Kennedy made this bold goal, that the United States would put a man on the surface of the moon and return him safely home by the end of the decade.
In real time, NASA had seven years to set the objectives, find the talent, and create technologies and materials that did not yet exist. In his famous Rice University speech, Kennedy proclaimed, “We choose to go to the moon and the other things in the decade, no because they are easy, but because they are hard!”
The project employed 400,000 workers from every part of this country, the best and the most gifted. The world watched in awe and saw the fairies and fatalities along the way, but in the end, it payed off. The world witnessed what happens when a nation comes together as one people with a common goal. For the first time in the history of mankind on the planet, we were able to see what our beautiful planet looked like from a quarter of a million miles away.
Then came the seventies. I was there. There was tension and discontent but in my experience, most people I met and knew were genuinely nice and engaging, creative. Though the unrest erupted, there was still a sense of civility and yet there was a great deal of distrust for the establishment, for government leaders. Individuality was celebrated.
Then came the 1980s and 1990s and America made it through some tough times economically. In the early 1980s, home mortgages were in the low to mid teens. I bought my first television in 1984 and paid 400 dollars for a 19 inch screen and had three channels. My phone plan in 1979 was set up to limit calls to 30 per month and cost 8 dollars per month. Long distance calls were expensive. When I lived overseas from the mid 1970s to the later 1970s a 10 minute call home was equivalent to 65 dollars in today’s money. The extreme materialism had not set in yet. I was amazed when I was given a bag phone for work in 1996. How things have changed.
Then came the 2000s and the internet was taking hold, cell phones were better and then came September 11, 2001 and we were stunned. America came together as a nation, rallied around a President. That was good, but something happened then. The government was given broader powers to fight the enemy. Most understood the reasons for a limited war in Afghanistan. I remember when President Bush flew in on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed, “Mission Accomplished.” Not even close.
Then the chickens came home to roost and America got a schooling. The war carried on but most Americans had no idea what was going on and I would venture a guess, that without Google or a map could not really say much about these countries. Materialism became rampant as Americans are bombarded with thousands of advertisements every day. Social scientists and marketing psychologists study behavior constantly. Individual radio stations were swallowed up by big conglomerates, big tech gained great market share, massive businesses are gobbling up little businesses like a snack and politicians are selling their souls so that they can align themselves up for lucrative consultancies, many working for foreign governments such as the CCP teaching them how to play our system. They have a hard time deciding which of the ocean front properties to stay at, jet around the world in private jets that spew out harmful emissions while preaching at us about climate change. Oh please!
A cadre of elected officials and now a growing number of non-elected government officials have teamed up with big tech and media to manipulate information, divide us into groups (communities) and advocate intolerance. They engineer what is seen, the timing, and the message. Why? What is their purpose?
What we are witnessing once normal people who could get along and work together are now being pitted against each other. Friendships and families have suffered. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are individuals and groups who do no like America and are perpetuating the discontent and are advocating for a Marxist agenda. They don’t value the individual nor do they respect the fact that individuals are not easily pigeon holed in to the new categories that they are creating. “Oh, I see, you are a 1-A, B3. I have you figured out.”
This is a sad time in this nation and for the world I fear. The leader who promised to united the nation is doing anything but that, quite the opposite. He has created a disaster on our southern border and endorses the chaos. Dangerous drugs are freely flowing on our streets and destroying the fabric of our nation. Violent crime is up, property damage is up, homelessness is up, the supply chain is fragile and every American is feeling the economic squeeze. No person is spared. These are the people who treat everyday Americans like the enemy and target parents more than the criminals on the street who are not being prosecuted. To get out of this mess will take a very strong leader. Our current leader is MIA and his handlers are doing their best to bring us down. This nation must learn the fear of God before we can have any hope of a true recovery. We can’t go back, but when we’ve lost our way, looking back is a good way to gain insight and recalibrate.
https://youtu.be/g25G1M4EXrQ
Hear!! Hear!!!
Trump had unsecured TS/SCI materials in his personal residence. All this other stuff is a big nothing burger distraction and more Turley fake news.
So did Clinton. Except she was not the President. Presidential power affords the President much more leeway.
I agree it is nothing but DoJ distractions at the request of their boss. Democrat Party.
For the umpteenth time,Trump is not President. His presidency ended on January 20, 2021, and — per Biden’s Admin. — his security clearance ended with it.
Dear Anonymous.. if Trump wanted to keep classified info he would have copied it .or photographed it ;long before he left the WH.. he would not have dragged a bunch of papers with him… like all other Presidents, it was the GSA who packed and moved stuff…
For the umpteenth time, the GSA made clear that Trump directed what papers were to be packed. The GSA has NO say-so about that. No “other President” ever STOLE documents belonging to the NARA, refused to return them, lied about returning them, and then profitted politically and financially from their wrongdoing by claiming to be a victim. Trump was told by his White House counsel NOT to take the papers. He took them anyway and forced the FBI to get a search warrant.
Many people have wondered why he not only stole the papers, sorted through them, returned 15 boxes of selected materials, but kept 24 more boxes of papers pertaining to sensitive national secrets, and why he had his lawyer lie about all of them having been returned. My opinion is that Trump thought he could leverage this material into somehow getting back into power, or, at least, an agreement not to prosecute him if he agreed to return these things. This would be consistent with his well-earned reputation for having literally no morals whatsoever in business dealings and his narcissistic need to “win at all costs”. Think of where his head was when he stole these things: he had lost the election, went on TV declaring that he had won anyway, tried to stop the mail and absentee ballots from getting counted because more of them went for Biden, went on “Stop the Steal” campaigns to rile up his fans, filed over 60 lawsuits that failed for lack of evidence, failed in trying to bully Pence and Republican Secretaries of State to reject valid votes for Biden, instigated an insurrection that failed, and had to be threatened with forcible removal if he didn’t leave the White House. Considering this context, his wrongful taking of these papers to be used as some sort of future leverage becomes abundantly clear.
If he weren’t trying to keep them, he would have returned all of them when he was first asked for them.
What do you mean by the word keep? He had news articles. Is he stopping the presses? He had passports. Are they not his? He had documents that are already on computers. Did he erase the computers? He probably had some other documents that according to the PRA were rightfully his to hold.
Trump was not required by law to give back all of these things most of which were already public, in government files or his and nothing was classified unless you can prove it wasn’t. Yet all of these things were taken. That doesn’t seem irregular to you. One has to think why. Are you a fascist?
Turley left out a few facts: the order specifically says that it shall NOT be construed as granting the request for a special master. Of course, per his paycheck, Turley, once again, contributes to the alt-right theme that Merrick Garland is the bad guy here, not Trump, who: 1. stole classified documents and kept them in an unsafe and unsecure locations at his beach resort; that has been proven, and Trump doesn’t deny it. Instead, he has come up with a list of lies; 2. has tried to blame the GSA for “packing them” BUT, if they really, really belonged to Trumpy Bear, then what difference would it make WHO packed them? The GSA issued a statement establishing that it has no power to decide what gets packed–that falls on Trump; 3. resisted, for months, multiple requests to return the documents, but continues to claim that he has been “cooperative”; 4. voluntarily returned 15 boxes of them but retained 24 boxes of others that he is now claiming are his property; 5. failed to lodge any objections in response to the subpoena. Rule 45 (d)(3)(A)of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure states: “(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena: (A) When Required: On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:…(iii) requires diclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies;” IMHO, since the documents Trump forced the FBI to seize with a warrant are the same as those described in the subpoena, he has WAIVED any objections on the grounds of privilege or other “protected matter” because he didn’t raise it back in June. Executive privilege does NOT apply–these documents were generated by the CIA, Homeland Security and other agencies, and are not records of the presidential deliberative process. Classified documents are NOT the property of the president. They belong to the United States of America.
Turley, of course, won’t respond to the cavalcade of lies put out by alt-right media, such as as the above and: 1. Trump can wave a magic wand and declare any paper to be “declassified”; 2. 18 former members of his administration deny any such “standing order” exists, and no proof of same has been produced. 3. A biggie here: it wouldn’t matter whether any of the documents actually HAD been declassified–they are still the property of the NARA and must be returned upon demand.
There is no defense to Trump’s conduct. Garland MUST prosecute him–otherwise, anyone who manages to cheat his way into office can treat our country’s most-sensitive defense secrets as personal property. If they are his personal property, then he can just hand them to anyone he wants–or even sell them to the highest bidder This cannot be allowed. Documents cannot become the president’s property merely because he can lay his hands on them. The only reasonable defense would have been to claim it was a mistake of fact, but it wasn’t. Trump was told by his White House counsel that the documents he took were NOT his property. The NARA told him they weren’t his property. He cooperated at first until he started getting advice from Judicial Watch–some firebrand there who isn’t even a lawyer and who has tried to conflate an issue over interview tapes by an historian with Bill Clinton with this situation. Bill was interviewed by an historian, who recorded the sessions. Judicial Watch served an FOIA request to the NARA for the tapes, which were the property of the author. The NARA responded to Judicial Watch that these were NOT presidental records, and that they didn’t have the tapes anyway. So now, Judicial Watch is claiming that these classsified documents should be treated the same as tapes of an interview with an author. No comparison whatsoever.
..It is not just weak links like Garland who can be seen as contributing to the chaos from the darkside, but those self-appointed ego-centric ‘experts’ who proclaim to us that ‘there is no defense..’ for Trump and that ‘..Garland ‘MUST’ prosecute him…’.. and who erroneously think that the louder they get the more we will buy into their distorted and out of context hate spin…
IF COMEY HAD PROSECUTED HILLARY, COMEY WOULD HAVE CONVICTED OBAMA
TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE – NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING A CASE SUCH AS THIS – A CASE THAT WOULD BRING DOWN THE DEEP STATE SWAMP
SEVEN HILLARY CLINTON E-MAIL CHAINS CONTAINED SECRET/TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM MATERIAL
BARACK OBAMA USED PSEUDONYMOUS ACCOUNT TO CRIMINALLY EXCHANGE E-MAIL WITH HILLARY CLINTON
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 5, 2016
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
(Excerpted)
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING SUCH A CASE. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
– FBI National Press Office
!s the Process of Approving the Search Warrant more Political Motivated or Part of a Typical Law Enforcement Procedere?
On Friday, 8/26/22 National Intelligence Director (DNI) Avril Haines, appointed by President Biden & confirmed by Senate 84-10, in a letter to House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Oversight Committee chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): this “[…] will also lead an Intelligence Community (IC) assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of the relevant documents”
I give Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the point as for her concerns [1] about what was found at Mar-a-Lago on 8/8/22, 18 months after former President Trump left office. On the other hand, why did DoJ give # 45 so much time to eventually copy these top-secret documents and selling it to the Arabs ? I feel this was “extremely careless”!
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) sees this as a battle “that might be part of a larger deep-state plan to indict the former president in front of a D.C. jury”.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/newt-gingrich-fbi-raid-part-plan-indict-trump-politically-hostile-dc-jury
[1] On 1/6/21 she phoned General Mark Milley how to block President Trump from using nuclear codes.
All this ignores the central question. What is the right and intent of an ex-president secretly taking and holding highly classified documents that belong to agencies of the USA ? All else are simply side issues
Ask Hillary
“My guy did something wrong that I can’t rebut so I’m gonna talk about something someone else did wrong.”
Its called precedent and equal application of the law. DoJ screwed the pooch on the Clinton corruption, thus locking themself in a box of their own creation.
This is nothing but a document handling kerfuffle. The DoJ / FBI should have never been involved
So you think that the “DoJ screwed the pooch on the Clinton corruption,” but they should never learn from their mistakes, so they should also screw the pooch on the Trump corruption?
Because if that’s what you believe, it’s a pretty strange argument.
And if it’s not what you believe, then you should explain how your believe that they screwed up with Clinton has no implications now.
“This is nothing but a document handling kerfuffle”
You omit that some of those documents contain extremely sensitive national defense information, that they were illegally in Trump’s possession, that Trump has foreign nationals wandering around MaL, etc.
And that’s just what we know. The investigation is ongoing, and we have no idea what — if anything — Trump will be charged with.
Not at all. Trump was working with them in handing back docs. And it is quite possible he didn’t know that there was classified docs at his house at all. As a former pres, he should have been given the respect of continuing to work with him to get them back.
And yes, we are going to bring up Hillary Clinton. Why the hell wouldnt we? I know damn well that you would if the situation was reversed. Your party cant cry wolf about shit all the time when you’re doing or have done the exact same thing & then expect us to not call you out on it. It doesn’t work that way!
It’s impossible to expose your hypocrisy without detailing similar transgressions.
Preach. No real conservative should defend someone who so blithely treats TS/SCI material and endangers national security.
I haven’t seen anything close to proof of your statement. Do you have it?
“All this ignores the central question.”
Why is the Left trashing American institutions to “get Trump?”
“NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING SUCH A CASE”
TRUTH: IF COMEY HAD PROSECUTED HILLARY, COMEY WOULD HAVE CONVICTED OBAMA
SEVEN E-MAIL CHAINS CONCERN MATTERS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED AT THE TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM LEVEL WHEN THEY WERE SENT AND RECEIVED
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System – July 5, 2016
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
…there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING SUCH A CASE.
CORRECT… I.E., THERE IS NO CASE THAT CAN STAND UP IN COURT…an indictment would be for political theatre…like the Fake News of the long-running Hoaxes of the Steele Dossier-Russia Collusion-Mueller Investigation, then the Impeachments, then the Hearings and now the Raids………..when one attempt fails to stop Pres. Trump, another pops up……
I’m still at a loss as I have not found any evidence that a president needs to follow a certain set or protocol to unclassify documents. He or she certainly need not get permission from underlying and bureaucrats as he or she is the boss of the federal government. It seems a president in fact can wave his magic wand and have a standing order to declassify anything and everything he or shes wants. I’ve read articles on the subject going all the way back to 1997 and none of them lay out any legal requirements the president must follow whatsoever. Stop calling the documents classified, President Trump said he declassified them, and that is enough. Now, can an ex president still temperately hold on to such declassified documents since they are the properly of the federal government? That’s another issue.
None of the three criminal laws cited in the search warrant depend on the documents being classified. Those laws apply even if the documents were declassified.
As for your search, you might read Executive Order 13526:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The sitting President is an original classification authority. Nothing prevents him from declassifying information, but he must still follow Section 1.6(a)(4) of the EO, because neither Trump nor Biden have overridden EO 13526 with a different EO while in office. EO 13526 remains law.
“President Trump said he declassified them”
He did. But he lies a lot and has not said this under oath. More importantly, again: None of the three criminal laws cited in the search warrant depend on the documents being classified.
The legislative branch has no dominion over the separate and equal executive branch.
Legislation on classified material in the executive branch is unconstitutional.
Finally.. an ‘anonymous’ voice that is SPOT ON… Thank YOU.. too many of the others are here to simply present their hate spin and are missing the facts you very clearly present.
I think this is the Rifkin article that makes things clear. If it isn’t I will have to look for the other one.
If a declassification falls in a forest and nobody hears it, is it still declassified?
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hear it, is it still standing tall?
It’s surprising that some people say Trump intended to monetize the documents. He’s a rich guy already – and his supporters send him millions
every time he solicits donations for something or other.
Define “rich guy”–Trump is someone who needs to borrow millions just to keep his properties afloat. They are all underwater–meaning that he owes more on them than the equity in them. He was forced to sell off the Washington DC hotel. He can’t borrow from any US banks due to 6 bankruptcies. In my book, someone who has a negative net worth isn’t a “rich guy”–just a pretender.
He can’t borrow from any US banks due to 6 bankruptcies. In my book, someone who has a negative net worth isn’t a “rich guy”–just a pretender.
The Agriculture company I retired from borrowed from a syndicate of lenders. No one lender could stand the exposure. Their cash flow and Balance sheet were excellent.
I share this, only as an example of to the readers of how little you know of the workings of business. Real Estate development, is a paricuarly specialized enterprise.
You know nothing of business, and what little you do know, is laughably wrong.
Deutche Bank is one of the most conservative lenders in the entire world.
They do not lend money they are not certain they are getting back.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/index.html
“Financial institutions are under the lens of regulators, and that scrutiny looks like it will only continue to grow. In fact, financial institutions that lack compliance and due diligence were already fined a staggering $2.7 billion in 2021, according to our “AML Fines 2021 Report.”
“CFPB Orders Citibank to Pay $700 Million in Consumer Relief for Illegal Credit Card Practices”
“Citigroup fined $400 million for risk management deficiencies”
Nothing described in this article is money laundering.
All it sounds like is DB giving DOJ money to avoid a war over assisting others to use their own legitimate money as they pleased.
Do you think that the people in China should be permitted by the US government to get their money out of China ?
I certainly do.
But go forbid that we should not be in 1984 where words mean something different from the plain meaning because someone in government wishes to mangle language, so that we can not communicate.
Natacha.. it would serve you to at least know the facts before you spin all of your erroneous conclusions… The Banks gladly loaned Trump more funding in the midst of his Bankrupcies. Do the research before you let your pen get out of control.
NO they didn’t–the most-recent loan came from some guy who owns an internet bank. Ask yourself this question: If he’s such a “stable genius” WHY should he need to keep on borrowing money just to keep his empire afloat? Do Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have to borrow money to keep their businesses going? WHY did he lie on financing statements used to obtain loans by exaggerating his alleged wealth? That’s what he’s being investigated for in New York. One example: he grossly overstated the square footage of his living quarters in Trump Tower on financing statements, and gave an entirely different (and much lower) figure for tax purposes. Square footage of an apartment is not something subject to an opinion or difference in valuation by appraisers: it is a fixed thing. This is just ONE example of the multiple lies he told under oath, and one to which there is NO defense.