It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Line Crossed: Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

page: 12
90
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Right.

So no evidence, just your feeling that if they lied they must have stole the election with russia.

And it wasnt just hillary.,

It was the DNC too, who is still in power.

But for some reason you dont seem concerned with Russia working with them to steal an election.

Almost like you are a partisan hack.

Surely not!




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'll tell you who is one of the main swampers behind this witch hunt regarding Trump's banking affairs.

I'll give you a hint. She has been named Most Corrupt Member of Congress four (4) times!



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I think you missed the point I was making.

It has nothing to do with age or retiring congress-people.

It has to do with Trump's election actually hardening the establishment, giving it credibility and making it look reasonable in comparison.
maybe to some folks.

Others, even many that dislike trump, are aghast at just how corrupt the establishment is proving to be in stopping outsiders like Bernie and trump.


Corrupt, without proof? So corrupt that Trump was able to get elected despite their efforts?

Perhaps they are not as corrupt as people think they are.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the cries of corruption are more conspiracy than fact.


Yep ask Bernie.

He got a fair shake didnt he?


No, but he would of lost anyway. Hillary got the votes.

Anyway, if Trump won the presidency, how was he stopped by the "corrupt"?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




The thing is with every bit of news that comes out about this investigation its like the noose (Trump supporters don't freak out, I mean metaphorically) is tightening on trump.


So nothing has changed in almost two years then.


Come on, you can't be that blind, senior members of the Trump camp have been charged in a investigation looking into Russian conclusion in the recent elections.

Things have changed.

Now yes granted nothing has happened yet that has directly implicated the Donald himself to the point where he too has been incited but it does feel like the net is closing in on him. Now you can disagree with my opinion on that all you want but its not changing my opinion that the net is closing in on him.


There have been no charges against anyone relating to working with Russia to meddle in the election.

Your 'noose' that you are talking about is just you getting fed propaganda. Call it Trump porn. You seem to like it.

edit on 5/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I think you missed the point I was making.

It has nothing to do with age or retiring congress-people.

It has to do with Trump's election actually hardening the establishment, giving it credibility and making it look reasonable in comparison.
maybe to some folks.

Others, even many that dislike trump, are aghast at just how corrupt the establishment is proving to be in stopping outsiders like Bernie and trump.


Corrupt, without proof? So corrupt that Trump was able to get elected despite their efforts?

Perhaps they are not as corrupt as people think they are.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the cries of corruption are more conspiracy than fact.


Yep ask Bernie.

He got a fair shake didnt he?


No, but he would of lost anyway. Hillary got the votes.

Anyway, if Trump won the presidency, how was he stopped by the "corrupt"?


Who said he was stopped?

Is your argument is if trump won there couldnt have been any corruption on the other side?

Regardless, just with Benrie we can see that the establishment is corrupt.

Doesnt bother yo0u though I guess, cause somehow you know that Hillary would have beat bernie anyways.

Those of us interested in a fair process do care though.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Who said he was stopped?


You did. Here is your quote:



Others, even many that dislike trump, are aghast at just how corrupt the establishment is proving to be in stopping outsiders like Bernie and trump.


So was Trump stopped, or were they just not corrupt enough to stop him?

Even if you were just referring to Trump as an example of an outsider and do not mean he was stopped, it is a poor example considering he won the presidency.



Is your argument is if trump won there couldnt have been any corruption on the other side?


No. My argument is that claiming corruption stops outsiders like Trump, even though he won the presidency, is a very crappy and poorly-founded claim. It's contradictory.



Regardless, just with Benrie we can see that the establishment is corrupt.


No. It's proves the DNC were biased. You have to provide more info to prove they were corrupt, which by definition means the people making the decisions to alienate Bernie benefited in some way personally.



Doesnt bother yo0u though I guess, cause somehow you know that Hillary would have beat bernie anyways.


Doesn't bother me because I'm not a Democrat. It's a private political party. Let them screw each other over for all I care.



Those of us interested in a fair process do care though.


Well, register Democrat and get to work, buddy. Let me know how it goes.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yes we know it doesnt bother you that the DNC rigged the system against bernie.

Really illustrates where you are coming from.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
thehill.com...



White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Tuesday disputed reports that special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed President Trump’s bank records. “We confirmed that the news reports [that] the special counsel had subpoenaed financial records related to the president are completely false,” Sanders said during the daily press briefing. “No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources. I think this is another example of the media going too far and too fast and we don't see it going in that direction," she said.

from "the hill"
take it for what it is worth
given the abc bs who knows


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wow. Mueller is such a tease. Getting their hopes up for a few hours and it turns out it's another dud. Holy # this is hilarious.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Found an article:
Trump Attorney Denies Deutsche Bank Received Mueller Subpoena


When asked for a statement, Deutsche Bank issued a cryptic response where it neither confirmed nor denied the existance of a Trump subpoena. And now, Trump's own attorney is denying the story, saying he spoke with representatives from DB and they confirmed that no such subpoena had been issued.

Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, said Deutsche Bank has not received any subpoena for financial records relating to the president as part of Mueller’s probe, according to Reuters.

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false,” Sekulow told Reuters in a statement. “No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources."
Sekulow later said the bank in question was Deutsche Bank. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

Deutsche Bank has said only that it takes “its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations into this matter.”


So, it appears that nobody has confirmed the story about the DB subpoena.

ETA: Reading a bit further, it appears that the initial (unconfirmed) claim is that Mueller wanted to see if DB had sold Trump's loans to Russian banks that are being sanctioned. Even if this did happen, banks sell loans all the time. Unless we're theorizing a scheme where the loans are a scam, and Trump isn't actually making the payments, it looks to me like it's just another attempt to scream "RUSSIA!" and have the idiots think it proves something.
edit on 5-12-2017 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2017 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes we know it doesnt bother you that the DNC rigged the system against bernie.

Really illustrates where you are coming from.



No. It doesn't bother me. I'm not a Democrat, they are a private party and Bernie had no business running as a Democrat to begin with. I know honesty is not something you are used to, let alone practice yourself, but don't be surprised when you see someone honest enough to tell you what they really think.

That being said, can you try to elaborate on how the establishment was so corrupt that it stopped both Bernie and Trump?

Or perhaps you will be honest yourself and admit you were talking out of your ass?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No. My argument is that claiming corruption stops outsiders like Trump, even though he won the presidency, is a very crappy and poorly-founded claim. It's contradictory.


That's a bit like saying there is no racism in American politics because Obama was elected.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes we know it doesnt bother you that the DNC rigged the system against bernie.

Really illustrates where you are coming from.



No. It doesn't bother me. I'm not a Democrat, they are a private party and Bernie had no business running as a Democrat to begin with. I know honesty is not something you are used to, let alone practice yourself, but don't be surprised when you see someone honest enough to tell you what they really think.

That being said, can you try to elaborate on how the establishment was so corrupt that it stopped both Bernie and Trump?

Or perhaps you will be honest yourself and admit you were talking out of your ass?


Its stopped bernie, that is self evident.

It is attempting to stop Trump in every possible way; through media, academia, the intel community, etc.

But you know that.

Its funny to see your opinion of yourself is that of an honest person.

I would call someone who doesnt have a problem with one party screwing a candidate out of a nomination while happily taking money from his supporters and lying about it a word different than honest.

Of course, you are the same person that thinks connections to foreign agents should warrant an investigation, except when its hillary.

And also thinks there is no need to question Bills half a million dollars he got right after meeting putin from Russian banks right before the u1 deal, because it was just speaking fees, nothing to see there.

You also see the word intent in a legal statute were it doesnt appear at all, and then challenge outher peoples ability to "ficken" read when they dont have the same hallucination seeing that word as you do.

But I am glad you have a high opinion of yourself.

Everyone should have at least one person that admires them, in your case it might as well be yourself.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
He also clearly cared deeply for the USA before he ran for office.

Which is why products bearing his brand were being manufactured outside of the US, right? Ivanka's as well?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Its stopped bernie, that is self evident. It is attempting to stop Trump in every possible way; through media, academia, the intel community, etc. But you know that.


But Trump wasn't stopped. If you would have not mentioned his name, you may of had a point. By invoking Trump's name, you contradict your own point.



Its funny to see your opinion of yourself is that of an honest person.


Simple minds are easily amused.



I would call someone who doesnt have a problem with one party screwing a candidate out of a nomination while happily taking money from his supporters and lying about it a word different than honest.


Ok. Does the word escape you?



Of course, you are the same person that thinks connections to foreign agents should warrant an investigation, except when its hillary.


Well, if you considered yourself at least a bit of an honest person, you would include the rest of the context of what I said on that issue.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breathe on that one.



And also thinks there is no need to question Bills half a million dollars he got right after meeting putin from Russian banks right before the u1 deal, because it was just speaking fees, nothing to see there.


Ya, he got paid a lot of money to talk in front of people. What's new there? People do that all the time.

What I will not do is believe the nutty, convoluted conspiracy you and others create out of thin air.



You also see the word intent in a legal statute were it doesnt appear at all, and then challenge outher peoples ability to "ficken" read when they dont have the same hallucination seeing that word as you do.


I believe I questioned your ability to read because you were literally debating against arguments no one had made. The epitome of a straw man.

I could be mistaken though. I was tired and you were drunk. Don't give drunks too much of my time and I decided to move on once the strawmen became your focus, or lack of focus. Depends on what you were drinking I guess.



But I am glad you have a high opinion of yourself.


Perhaps you should work on building a higher opinion of yourself.



Everyone should have at least one person that admires them, in your case it might as well be yourself.


Well, you're not giving me a better option. So what am I supposed to do?

Anyway, I would hope that you would be able to set aside all the personal attacks and we could talk about the issues. If you want to continue the ad homs, I can oblige but I can only do so until you get sloshed, your grammar gets even worse than it already is and I move on because of the utter boredom.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

More flat out lies by you, the honest guy.

You questioned my reading comprehension about saying intent was in the statute; it is not.

I was not drunk or drinking, nor did I claim to be.

More proof you live in you own world that is not reality.

Funny how you resort to a lie only a few post after bragging about how honest you are.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Fake News



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You questioned my reading comprehension about saying intent was in the statute; it is not.


I was talking about the wording of the definitions of the verbiage within the statute.



I was not drunk or drinking, nor did I claim to be.


Are you sure? Not sure how anyone that was sober could have tried to create and debate an argument no one had even made. Again, the epitome of a straw man fallacy.

No matter. If you weren't, I apologize and commend you on the change of pace.



Funny how you resort to a lie only a few post after bragging about how honest you are.


I did not brag in the slightest, but considering your propensity for hyperbole and dramatics, I can understand why you would see it that way.

So, again, are we going to talk about the issues or do we want to continue down the personal route?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Ok, so the bank got served. And this news why?

The subpoena pretty much means that someone from the bank is being compelled in court to testify on very specific matters, that they have direct knowledge of and can confirm. Now for this to be of any real news or revelation, it would have had to give very specific details as to what information, showing such to the public, and the warrants that were issued to said person and bank. However, I think that this is simply a bit of checking for very specific information. However, we can not be sure as to who it was about if it was Trump or if it was about one of the other people being investigated at this time frame until said information has been released, after the release of the gag order that is usually in place around this kind of investigation.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


Ok, so the bank got served.


We do not know if this has actually happened:


Deutsche Bank declined to comment, but told Bloomberg in a statement that it always cooperated with investigating authorities.


The Guardian

Another source:


“Deutsche Bank always cooperates with investigating authorities in all countries,” the lender said in a statement to Bloomberg on Tuesday, declining to provide additional information.


Bloomberg

No one other than, "a person briefed on the matter, who asked not to be identified," is quoted in regards to the subpoena as having been issued. This was reiterated later in the Bloomberg article:


When approached about the Dowd comment, the person familiar with the matter reiterated that the bank had received a subpoena.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nope, I wont accept an apology that is implying I am usually drunk.

You lied about me to slander me, and are continuing to do so.

Please, keep claiming how honest you are while you spread lies about people.


edit on 5-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
90
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join