Trump Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has ties to illicit Russian finance

This is getting ridiculous. Either Russia has ties to everyone, or something very fishy is going on in this administration. I can see why Republicans like the Russians- they're both crazy and have no morals, but this is ridiculous. So much for putting America first.

boingboing.net...

He invested money in a Cyprus financial institution that also has Russian clients. OH NO!!!!? Did you read the article?

NO

NO

NO !!

a reply to: CB328

I don't think it's fair to say republicans have no morals or are any crazier than democrats. In fact some of the libertarian branch actually works on legislation. Rand just cosponsored a bill on juvenile solitary confinement. Something almost nobody in the public even thinks about.

I think it's just as bad to exploit compassion which is what many democrats do

a reply to: hombero

To be fair, the linking article is now 404'd.

Billionaire Wilbur Ross, 79, was sworn in today as secretary of commerce. According to DC Report, Ross' "role as Vice Chair and a leading investor in the Bank of Cyprus, the largest bank in Cyprus, one of the key offshore havens for illicit Russian finance,"

So, the secretary of commerce is a leading investor in a foreign tax haven bank.....
That just doesn't sound right, even if we were to leave Russia out of it.

The Bank of Cyprus caters to the island nation’s large Russian population. Nor is Ross’ Bank of Cyprus in particular – now probably at least half owned by Russians, as we‘ll see -- any stranger to money laundering, tax dodging, or odious finance. With a market share of 30 percent, Bank of Cyprus has long been the market leader in Cypriot financial chicanery

So again, if we ignore the Russian reference, it still sounds bad...

a reply to: CB328

Take it up with the Supreme Court for abolishing any kind of campaign finance guidelines with the advent of Super pacs.

Every candidate will now be attached to overseas interests via business affiliations. And at such a blatant extent it will be hard for voters to differentiate the malicious from the unknown affiliations.

originally posted by: hombero
He invested money in a Cyprus financial institution that also has Russian clients. OH NO!!!!? Did you read the article?

It says it wasn't illegal, it also says his judgment for even being involved in such a shady deal is the issue.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: CB328

Take it up with the Supreme Court for abolishing any kind of campaign finance guidelines with the advent of Super pacs.

Every candidate will now be attached to overseas interests via business affiliations. And at such a blatant extent it will be hard for voters to differentiate the malicious from the unknown affiliations.

YUP

a reply to: veracity

It's actually the fault of the telecom act.

a reply to: luthier

They are textbook perfect examples of manipulating the laws, doing whatever they want but still stay legal to get what they want out of America.

Morals...forget about it, this administration will take advantage of any leadway possible to get what they want.

a reply to: veracity

Citizens united made sense legally because the consolidation of the media allowed a few people to have far too much influence over politics and elections.

Soros, and murdoch can pretty much manipulate the public because they own the opinions being published.

a reply to: luthier

im not talking about media

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: luthier

im not talking about media

Your talking about citizens united correct? That was the supreme court case.

a reply to: luthier

No, i am talking about all of the obvious ties to Russia yet nothing legally binding bc the administration knows how to manipulate the law, just like trump did when he filed for bankruptcy 7 times.

Im talking about morals...out the door, and taking advantage of laws and twisting them in their favor.

a reply to: luthier

The media side really has an angle at the end of large elections like presidential. The money pertains to all the the rest. The ones people don't know the candidates and vote for the R or D.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: luthier

The media side really has an angle at the end of large elections like presidential. The money pertains to all the the rest. The ones people don't know the candidates and vote for the R or D.

Citizens united would never have won if the media had not consolodated.

The telecom act may have been the single worst bill for America ever.

a reply to: luthier

it is very possible that i bounced up in here and started talking about something completely unrelated to the OP, if so sorry

I dont believe i did but ...

a reply to: luthier

I agree with you, and that is how they get away with these things. The sheer number of decisions made, it's hard to get enough people together to take them one on one.

That combined with earmarks in bills the fact is everything done now is only in the interest for the players in the game.

a reply to: veracity

I was responding to saying it was the supreme court who allowed unlimited contributions. Technically yes but congress created the basis.

Wilbur is a terrible choice. The investment in the article is extremely shady if accurate.