General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NYT money-laundering story presents a fresh conundrum for Mnuchin.
Mnuchin argues (in opposition to what the law actually says) that Congress needs a "legitimate purpose" if they want to see Trump's tax-returns.
In 2016 financial analysts at Deutsche Bank found evidence that Trump might be involved in money-laundering and recommended informing US law-enforcement for a thorough investigation. Their efforts were sabotaged by senior staff and US agencies were never informed.
(I guess, Deutsche Bank knew that if the Feds were to go after Trump, they would never get their loans back.)
So...
If the US President is under suspicion of money-laundering, is that a "legitimate purpose" for taking a closer look at his tax-returns?
watoos
(7,142 posts)The Blue Flower
(5,447 posts)He's covering the wrong butt. He should start looking out for his own.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Let's be reachin' for impeachin'.
-app
SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)This is not a new problem but never has it needed addressing more than now!
PatSeg
(47,649 posts)it would never get their loans back? Do they really not know who they were dealing with?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)They gave him the second loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first loan back.
They gave him the third loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first and second loan back.
They gave him the fourth loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first, second and third loan back...
kairos12
(12,882 posts)If you owe the bank $100,000 the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank $100,000,000 you own the bank.
PatSeg
(47,649 posts)that same crap on American banks. He holds them hostage and gets more loans.
BSdetect
(8,999 posts)duforsure
(11,885 posts)when the law states the taxes shall be provided period, and it's clearly being ignored,so he deserves consequences for this,or it'll get much worse. they should be made examples of to prevent more of this obstruction. he should be investigated and asked if he and trump conspired. he also needs to be asked if he knew of any illegal activities regarding trump, then if he lies he"s in deep trouble.
Botany
(70,614 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)
Botany
(70,614 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Maybe even today.
And the mighty roar rising from MAGAville will be heard all over the land!
kimbutgar
(21,224 posts)Educating the viewing tv audience to what is money laundering in prep for these disclosures.
procon
(15,805 posts)Republican demands. The law is plain and simple, and the Dems are clearly within their legal and statutory rights to demand any tax records, regardless of any reason.
Trump and his troop of brainless sycophants are acting above the law. They have no defensible position for not complying with the existing law... Just as other administrations have done before Trump.
By all means, Dems should investigate Trump's potential illegal activities in association with the bank, but that is a separate issue to the law that gives them the power to review any tax records.
triron
(22,026 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,496 posts)Could be wrong, but it's my understanding Congress needs some legitimate preemptive evidence - perhaps legally presented in court cases or perhaps items sent by a legitimate whistle-blower - in order for an official investigation with hearings to be triggered.
Except of course when Rethugs are in charge, multi-year investigations can be triggered by something Limbaugh or Alex Jones was overheard saying in a restroom in Peoria.
KY......