Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

[hislegacy]

It's not them drowning in their own rhetoric and grasping at nothing.

Oh, well in the face of that logic and overwhelming proof, I change my stance.

Unless it does.



They've already got two guys, and two more are in trouble. That's already a good haul for Mueller and his team.

Knock knock?
Who is there?
Reality

Reality who?

Reality that says neither of the two show anything untoward or illegal done by Trump or his team. One if for events happening BEFORE he worked for Trump and the other is because he LIED. Something that Trump fires him for.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Knock knock?
Who is there?
Reality

Reality who?

Reality that says neither of the two show anything untoward or illegal done by Trump or his team. One if for events happening BEFORE he worked for Trump and the other is because he LIED. Something that Trump fires him for.

And all of whom had Russian contacts they did not disclose or actively hid, some from several years ago. So you see why their investigation might go back a bit.

 

[redleghunter]

What does a transaction from 2008 have to do with the 2016 election.

Grasping at straws.

Lets just hope Mueller 'calls in the dogs' again this time on Trump:

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

When Comey and Mueller Bungled the Anthrax Case | RealClearPolitics

 

[redleghunter]

What does that have to do with Russian collusion eight years later?

A financial transaction between two private individuals.

Absolutely nothing. Even if Trump sold a dacha to Putin in 2000 it has no bearing on the scope of the special counsel. Which seems to be everything now.

Now that we know Flynn's transgression was talking with a Russian ambassador as part of a transition team (not illegal) and the laughable Logan Act is what they are trying to pin him on, I am firmly convinced Flynn is an idiot for lying about doing something perfectly legal.

 

[redleghunter]

Then you should know that, depending on the level, that your financial and personal dealings were fair game.

Yes before you take on the responsible job.

Do you think team Hillary would have paid for a dubious dossier on Trump if his business dealings were easier to pick apart?

 

[redleghunter]

To see if Trump began some sort of relationship with Russian officials before the election.

Sort of like funneling millions through a 'foundation' giving Uranium rights to the Russians while sitting as Sec State?

 

[redleghunter]

How? Are their names on the deposits and withdrawals? Was it illegal to do business with Russians?

Can a case be made that any money changing hands was in preparation for the specific events that brought about this investigation in the first place? That's the biggie. This is about "collusion" during the election, not whether or not Trump was doing this or that with Russians a decade ago.

That's why people see this as a fishing expedition.

I bought a Coke for a Russian Captain a few years ago at a conference. I guess my security clearance update is doomed!

 

[PeachyKeane]

Sort of like funneling millions through a 'foundation' giving Uranium rights to the Russians while sitting as Sec State?

Just like that. Except that the US government didn't give Uranium rights, they were bought from another company.

 

[Gadarene]

Well Fed Chairman

Seriously I have to ask, what kind of mutant ever eats the Filet-O-Fish, never mind two of them

Obvious Russian plant, impeach now

 

[LoAmmi]

Hogwash2. An American Private citizen with no ties to the US government sells a home to a Russian private citizen almost a decade ago has zero to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election

They are drowning in their own rhetoric and grasping at nothing hoping to find something that will not make all of them look like the idiots they are.

Must. Defend. Trump. At. All. Costs!

 

[redleghunter]

It's probably to see if money has changed hands, to see who Trump and his teams may have been in contact with. Past contacts could be used again.



I don't think that's the point. I think it's to find other potential points-of-contact so they can be investigated.



I'd bet that investigators don't care.

The collusion before and during the 2016 campaign is virtually dead now. That is why Dem lawmakers are now back to the Logan Act and Comey's firing (obstruction of Justice). If you follow the recent OPEDs and buried stories you will find this out. Here are a couple of examples:

Byron York: In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?

If Michael Flynn's 'crime' is all Robert Mueller has, it is time to move on

The outgoing Obama admin needed something to open an investigation at Justice and to unleash the FISA requests unmasking Flynn and others. They used the laughable Logan Act over 200 years old which no one in our history has been convicted.

So Flynn covers up his legal conversations with the Russians during transition. Which every incoming admin does and some even conducted diplomacy during the election:

Did candidate Obama call world leaders in 2008?

Why did Flynn lie about something perfectly legal? That's the million dollar question.

 

[redleghunter]

Let's remove it from the President. If I was under suspicion for working with organized crime, and a number of years ago I had financial dealings with someone who is known to be connected to organized crime *and* that financial deal was especially lucrative for me beyond what it should have been, would it be possible there's a connection between me working with organized crime and me having a very favorable outcome in a business deal with a person connected to it?

Agreed. However, what do bank records from almost 10 years ago have to do with a 2016 election campaign. Do you really think Trump made that deal so he could beat Hillary almost 10 years later?

 

[LoAmmi]

Agreed. However, what do bank records from almost 10 years ago have to do with a 2016 election campaign. Do you really think Trump made that deal so he could beat Hillary almost 10 years later?

It would be pretty simplistic thinking to only imagine those two points of data exist. If we were speculating, it would be more about buying influence and the like.

 

[cow451]

Yes before you take on the responsible job.

Do you think team Hillary would have paid for a dubious dossier on Trump if his business dealings were easier to pick apart?

Nope

 

[cow451]

I bought a Coke for a Russian Captain a few years ago at a conference. I guess my security clearance update is doomed!

Not if the comrade was shirtless.

 

[redleghunter]

And all of whom had Russian contacts they did not disclose or actively hid, some from several years ago. So you see why their investigation might go back a bit.

What's the motive?

1. 10 years back The Donald decides making a real estate deal in the favor of a private Russian citizen will help him 10 years later make a run for President. This Russian has the capability to rig an American election 10 years later.

2. 10 years ago The Donald decides to sell a house for more than its worth to a private Russian citizen. The sale raises eyebrows 10 years later as potentially crooked.

#2 is more plausible. And if #2 is actually what happened then the Dept of Justice should be investigating a real estate money laundering case. Not the special prosecutor.

Yet Justice just might have their hands full with a former sitting Sec State who used her office to sell Russians Uranium rights in the US. These same Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians some of which have been indicted and convicted of money laundering as part of the deal.

It would be pretty simplistic thinking to only imagine those two points of data exist. If we were speculating, it would be more about buying influence and the like.

Was Trump buying influence to run for President in 2008? He was having the time of his life with his own TV show and apparently groping women or talking about it.

So is the Don an evil mastermind who planned Russian collusion in 2008 for a 2016 campaign; or the idiot many people make him out to be here on these threads?

 

[redleghunter]

Just like that. Except that the US government didn't give Uranium rights, they were bought from another company.

And said company had been 'contributors' to the Clinton foundation. Neat deal. Any second year investigator at the FBI would find this a more lucrative and feasible pursuit.

 

[redleghunter]

Nope

Thanks for the honest answer. I agree. If this Russia bank house deal was a smoking gun, then Team Hillary and the DNC would have exploited it. And Obama would have had the Justice dept snooping around it during the 2016 campaign.

The only reason this is a big deal for Mueller is because he can do it. Do it he must as he will probably get some low hanging fruit person caught lying and he gets another indictment.

 

[redleghunter]

Not if the comrade was shirtless.

Yikes put that away now!!!

 

[Ada Lovelace]

So much for the admin's claims that the investigation was winding down and would be finished by Christmas, I guess.

This reminds me of the opening for Stephen Colbert's show last night: