Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

It is odd that all the Deutsche stories appear to be single-sourced. I thought most of the better news organizations required a second source for that kind of story.

Also wonder if they are all relying on the same source. They all seem to be able to get information from this one person. Hope its a good source.

I'm also wondering if Deutsche will say anything more about the subpoena if it exists. For the legal eagles out there, if a bank receives a subpoena of this sort are there any rules that prevent them from disclosing it to the press.
 
nsacpi said:
It is odd that all the Deutsche stories appear to be single-sourced. I thought most of the better news organizations required a second source for that kind of story.

Also wonder if they are all relying on the same source. They all seem to be able to get information from this one person. Hope its a good source.

I'm also wondering if Deutsche will say anything more about the subpoena if it exists. For the legal eagles out there, if a bank receives a subpoena of this sort are there any rules that prevent them from disclosing it to the press.
Click to expand...

All privacy agreements that are signed, which one would be in a large lending relationship, include provisions for which information can be shared and under what circumstances. I would wager there are almost none that permit under any circumstance sharing of information with the press.
 
Before I go to bed I'll toss out a little piece of speculation for yall to chew on. It appears that Trump's lawyers are denying that the bank records of Trump and family have been subpoenaed. The latest from the WSJ is that the subpoena concerned "people or entities affiliated with President Donald Trump."

I would speculate that one person the subpoena might relate to is Michael Cohen. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the name. Here is an interesting fairly recent article about some of his real estate dealings.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article180701541.html
 
Jeannie rhee, a member of Mueller teams, represented the Clinton foundation. I mean seriously. They couldn't have found other's in the bureau without such an obvious bias?
 
thethe said:
All privacy agreements that are signed, which one would be in a large lending relationship, include provisions for which information can be shared and under what circumstances. I would wager there are almost none that permit under any circumstance sharing of information with the press.
Click to expand...

Well I was asking about subpoenas not privacy agreements. Can a subpoena bind the party receiving it to secrecy.
 
nsacpi said:
Well I was asking about subpoenas not privacy agreements. Can a subpoena bind the party receiving it to secrecy.
Click to expand...

The privacy agreements I would think cover that. The only reason the bank has this information about the subpoena is because of their relationship. A relationship that is bound by contractual agreements. Disclosing any information about their client for which there is not a clause defined is illegal.
 
thethe said:
How do you explain the way this agent treated the cases of Abedin, Miller and Flynn. All three made false statements to the FBI. Two were not charged.

Look at the nature of the interview/interrogation process. This stinks to high heaven and I know you believe that deep down. I said many months ago that the campaign contributions were suspect. You said this is nothing. Now we are faced with more evidence of partisianship and on its own that is not the worst thing in the world. However, now you marry that to an analysis of his actions and that is when you build a case of corruption. The first piece is already clear. This man is a Liberal. He supports the democratic/liberal political party and candidates of that party. Now its time to take a look at his caseload.

I think we can all see where this is going.
Click to expand...

Ok. I keep asking you, specifically, why this is a deal-breaking problem, and what you keep telling me is different iterations of "well, they're Democrats" because some of the personnel are, by all appearances, Democrats. Because they donate money to Democrats. And I've said before, the profession, particularly in its elite ranks--where an outfit like this is likely to draw from--skews heavily towards Democrats in terms of political donations. Ty Cobb donated to Barack Obama and Bernie Effing Sanders. Is he incapable of representing Donald Trump without bias for that reason? There are DoJ guidelines that specifically preclude political contributions from being considered a conflict of interest. What you're saying is that you want the rules to be different for Donald Trump.

You are being influenced by a coordinated campaign to undermine the investigation--an investigation that's headed up by a Republican whose team likely reflects a reasonable sample of the profession.

Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, but he also failed to disclose that he was being paid for services by a cutout for the Turkish government, and he allegedly schemed to kidnap a US resident in exchange for payment from a foreign government. And you're telling me that what stinks is the political affiliation of some of the people investigating him.
 
Did Huma Abedin lie?

What about Cheryl Mills?

What makes their lie better and this treated differently?

Why was the Clinton investigation handled differently?

Where are the answers for those questions? Pretty much the same person leading the investigation.

Again, let's evaluate his actions now and determine if there is something. If an analysis of how they treated similar circumstances with both groups yields no divergence in behavior then there is nothing left to talk about. Being a partisan alone should not disqualify anyone.
 
Julio3000 said:
Ok. I keep asking you, specifically, why this is a deal-breaking problem, and what you keep telling me is different iterations of "well, they're Democrats" because some of the personnel are, by all appearances, Democrats. Because they donate money to Democrats. And I've said before, the profession, particularly in its elite ranks--where an outfit like this is likely to draw from--skews heavily towards Democrats in terms of political donations. Ty Cobb donated to Barack Obama and Bernie Effing Sanders. Is he incapable of representing Donald Trump without bias for that reason? There are DoJ guidelines that specifically preclude political contributions from being considered a conflict of interest. What you're saying is that you want the rules to be different for Donald Trump.

You are being influenced by a coordinated campaign to undermine the investigation--an investigation that's headed up by a Republican whose team likely reflects a reasonable sample of the profession.

Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, but he also failed to disclose that he was being paid for services by a cutout for the Turkish government, and he allegedly schemed to kidnap a US resident in exchange for payment from a foreign government. And you're telling me that what stinks is the political affiliation of some of the people investigating him.
Click to expand...

You mean the one Erdogan is holding Brunson for? Yep, same one. If Flynn can't get him for Erdogan, maybe holding Brunson will...

Btw, strange and totally unconnected fact? Brunson's parents were missionaries in Russia for many years. Andrew's mom ran a successful program working with alcoholics.
 
Hysterical. It was so bad the IG had to remove this agent from the team. You can't sweep this under the rug as much as you want to. Same crimes were punished differently along party lines. How can that be disputed?
 
thethe said:
Did Huma Abedin lie?

What about Cheryl Mills?

What makes their lie better and this treated differently?

Why was the Clinton investigation handled differently?

Where are the answers for those questions? Pretty much the same person leading the investigation.

...
Click to expand...

Ok, but all we have to go on right now are reports from media outlets who have a glaringly obvious interest in shaping a certain conclusion. I'd rather have a more comprehensive picture before drawing a conclusion.

Remember, the "illegal" unmasking story was being touted by the same outlets, and it turned out that Congressional Rs reviewed the events and determined that they were lawful and proper.

So Strzok interviewed Mills and Abedin. Was it determined that they lied? Did he have sole discretion about whether or not to charge them? I mean, I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you?

You say "Did Miller/Abedin lie?"

In the article you posted, I see two years-old email chains with the word "server" in them, rather than a specific reference to HRC's private email server in the basement at Chappaqua. In order to definitively say they were lying, you'd have to establish that they knew which server was being referred to, and indeed what a server is, precisely. That's just an off-the-cuff response by a layman...I'm sure a professional could do better. But it leads me to ask: do these stories prove what they're claiming to prove, or are they just attempting to muddy the waters?
 
At work but I'm fairly certain it was determined those two lied. I'll find articles at lunch.
 
In the case of Flynn, they had an array of things they could charge him with. Lying to the FBI is a convenient placeholder given the agreement to cooperate. Sure there was discretion exercised as to what to charge him with. But I don't find anything improper with that.
 
thethe said:
Hysterical. It was so bad the IG had to remove this agent from the team. You can't sweep this under the rug as much as you want to. Same crimes were punished differently along party lines. How can that be disputed?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the United States Justice System where the crimes are arbitrary and the punishments gets worse the darker your skin color. So it is not disputed, thats just how the justice system works.
 
Deutsche über alles

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-mueller-russia-deutsche-bank-subpoena-736295

Asked whether it was normal to give more money to a customer who was a bad credit risk and a litigant, one former senior Deutsche Bank staff member said: “Are you ****ing kidding me?”

I think the $300 million loan he got in 2010 was based upon some sort of guarantee (most likely implicit) from someone in Russia. Do I have proof of this? No. But I think it will come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top