Home | About | Donate

'The One Financial Institution That Stuck with Trump': Deutsche Bank Headquarters Raided in Germany

Because he did with them what he is doing to us…robbed them blind while blinding everyone with smoke and mirrors then blaming everybody else when they finally fail…https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html

This is why the retired Justice hand-picked his successor, slapping hundreds of years of Supreme Court tradition in the face. Kennedy knew Kavanaugh was a Trump apologist and this is why his messy nomination made a few waves. We may soon find out exactly the bear pooped in the buckwheat.

1 Like

From what I understand, trump’s credit rating in the U.S. was worthless. He defaulted on so many loans and had so many business failures, he had problems getting loans from American banks. The only banks that would loan him money were foreign banks. Saudi Arabia loaned him a lot of money, most likely why he has a problem saying anything bad about them, he no doubt has many shady dealings with Russian banks.


He also tried Qatar but they refused.

Investigations are now and always have been originated to reveal the facts surrounding an alleged crime, and while in pursuit of the truth around the investigation, other crimes are discovered, those tasked with the job of revealing all of the facts, would be derelict in their duty if they swept any crime under the rug.

In short, criminal investigations are an expedition to reveal the facts and the truth.

No kidding. If they are looking for a water leak in the basement and trip over a dead body are they supposed to ignore it?

This doesn’t mean much, at least not yet. Paperwork can get lost (shredded) that would be damning. It’s unlikely that there will be solid connections even if they get something. Mueller is doing good, but not great. Finding out that money was being laundered doesn’t make anything complicit between Trump and Russian money, at least not in a court. Unless Mueller can prove that Trump knew or had something to do with the laundering, then he could only use Trump related material. All this really shows is that that particular bank is corrupt, but what bank doesn’t have some level of corruption of that size?

As far as probable cause, in Donald Trump’s case, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that there isn’t an attorney or public official in NYCity, that doesn’t know something about the crimes of Fred Trump and his nurturing of his son, Donald, in his criminal practices and how best to use those practices, to make money.

Law be damned.

If we are initiating investigations into water leaks, we’re in bigger fucking trouble than I previously thought.

Just playing.

Or… Taxman!

I screwed up, that post was for the one before yours. Song was decent. I’ll check them out.

Now we’re getting somewhere, contrary to the DNC using it to distract from a murder, the Russia connection was never about the election, but about Trump and company money laundering for Russian oligarchs with their properties. This is what happens when you suck at business, and burn every bridge to a US bank.

The stated reason for the Deutsche Bank raid was money laundering specifically as it relates to the Panama Papers. The Trump name shows up on 3,540 of those leaked documents, many shedding light on what has become a business model. Some of his associates and business partners are also in the files. He’s not the only reason or even the biggest fish, but he’s sure in the mix.

Well they bit on Kushner’s 666 Fifth Avenue. Qatar Investment Company is one of the primary investors in Brookfield Properties that, in August, inked a deal with Kushner to take over the leasing and operation. The first bailout of Kushner’s ill-fated white elephant was by former SCOTUS Kennedy’s son Justin after he left Deutsche Bank where he helped the senior Trump out as head of the real estate division.

What has Panama Papers, the reason for Trump’s name on thousands of documents uncovered in the Panama papers, Paul Manafort’s legal entanglements discussed in the Pentagon papers including a deposition to a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and so much more? This April 2016 article:

Au contraire, my confident friend. The comparison isn’t valid, because a special prosecutor is a political job; one that is constrained by a commissioning charter restricting the scope of the investigation from the beginning. This isn’t the AGs office of a state. This is the rub between the WH and Rosenstein. And the WH has a gripe. Here’s the rule:


The collusion case was the one used to pitch the appointment–and thus the constraint of the scope–and Mueller’s abused that completely. This is Trump’s gripe. Imagine Archie Cox going after Nixon on his illegal orders to bomb Cambodia–a much bigger crime than Watergate. This would’ve been unthinkable, even if Cox found proof during his Watergate investigation. It wasn’t within his operating parameters.

Make no mistake. I agree with Democrats here that Trump’s up to hsi armpits in illegal cash sleaze. But letting prosecutors run wild without constraints isn’t in anyone’s interest. Would you want the state to be able to do that to you?

thanks for posting this. Again, everything comports with the general rule of special prosecution except the last part on “whichever fish grabs your line, go ahead and reel it in”. The argument is that this open-ended charter isn’t exactly legal since it violates the basic statute governing the appointment of special prosecutors, which supersedes whatever Rosenstein wants to put in a memo.

As citizens, it’s hard for me to believe that we want to nail someone so bad, we open up all of these expansive police powers that can be turned against us, too.

But I suppose if you’re willing to dive into bed with the CIA, the FBI, NATO and everyone else, what’s one more one night stand with a villain in order to score that political point you so desperately want.

1 Like

I don’t disagree with many of your points, especially as an African American woman who watched a lot of what happened to civil rights figures and groups like the Black Panthers in the 60s. Heck, had my own unpleasant experiences with authority figures and even the police just minding my own business.

But I also wonder what to do about a criminal enterprise that has taken control of our country and electorate. One that uses religious and nationalist themes to whip a portion of the electorate to dangerous levels (especially to folks like me) to cover their plunder, while they disembowel the voting process for those of us who clearly see what they’re doing and want to stop them.

I’m not naive. Greed and power are ever present in the “American Way”; been there since the beginning. But this is way more insidious, unapologetic, and shameless than anything I’ve seen in my 64 years. And it’s dangerous. My mother is 84 and grew up in rural Mississippi and even she says it’s like nothing she’s ever seen.

I’m mindful of Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote: "“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. But then, contrary to what most folks think, these words were in response to rich folks trying to avoid taxation instead of civil liberties (see Franklin, Penn family and defense of the frontier)

It’s a quandry.


FWIW, I miss Shirley Chisolm, too…:slight_smile:

It is a difficult puzzle. Everyone here knows Trump is trash. It’s not even worth discussing to me. But what do we trade to “get him”? Especially when so much of this is a personal vendetta to salvage the egos of the Clintonian rulership of the DNC? It’s not like they’re going after Trump for real shit, like Yemen, or like moving the embassy to Jerusalem, or the myriad other serious crap he pulls. It’s always the personal stuff. Which to me is always a red flag.

The mistake my better Democratic friends are making is to be focusing on the politics of personality in the first place, instead of the system that keeps producing these people.

We struggle on, my sister. We just need to do better on knowing who and what our targets really are.


Yes they bought this property. But he wanted to “borrow” from them and they refused. Big difference.