Trump’s Top Lawyer Says No Point In Investigating Trump’s Finances Because of... WHAATTT?

As I've said before, if they start really digging Russia is the least of Trumps worries. Anyone that thinks you can make it to the top of the mob-infested real estate game in NYC without some skeletons in the closet is fooling themselves.

Above a certain level, everyone is dirty.

originally posted by: Echo007
Mueller is being a pawn for the dems to collect as much dirt on Trump before the next election. Not once did ex FBI director comey say Trump was under any criminal investigation. Just look at ties of the people he brought on to help him investigate Trump.

The deflection is weak in this one..

But the OP is about what is fair game for investigation. I think for criminal aspects of the investigation almost anything goes. They are building a case. So, if you were building a case about a child molester, you could call witnessed from well beyond the statute of limitations, as long as you are pursuing a case that is current. It shows a pattern of child molestation.

Same thing in this instance. If Trump had past dealings with Russian mob oligarchs, and laundered money, or if Manafort helped him influence the U.S. govt. to repeal laws, then that should be an area to investigate.

originally posted by: Echo007
Not once did ex FBI director comey say Trump was under any criminal investigation.

Wouldn't this conform to standard law enforcement policy? In other words, you wouldn't want to tip off the subject of an investigation about the investigation.

As far as Trump being told three times by Comey that Trump was not under investigation: didn't this tidbit come from Trump, himself, without any confirmation from Comey about these three instances?

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Special investigators are supposed to typically stick to what they are supposed to investigate. There is actually a law for that.

Trump should throw the liberal media into a frenzy and grant pardons to all being investigated, not because they are guilty, but because lib's will have a heart attack if he does..

Politics are outright hilarious at times.

Excuse me! Why don't you check the scope of Mueller's mandate before you imply that he exceeded it.

Care to link it? As far as I'm aware he doesn't have one, and legally he's supposed to. He's abusing that to investigate anything and everything under the sun.

If you're trying to tie money into collusion, let me point out some other events in US history.

www.latimes.com...

"...The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions..."

10 billion dollars is some pretty heavy "collusion" and makes the Democrats very hypocritical for allowing that loan to Russia and then complaining about Trump Jr even talking to a Russian. And again millions spent on interfering with Yugoslavia's election.

"...In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said..."

But you're talking about owing people money right? Because renting a building to Russians is the same as accepting millions of dollars in campaign contributions from other countries? Like Hillary and those millions from the Saudis? Well if financial interests could sway politics, we better lock down Congress!

www.opensecrets.org...

"...Own stocks in oil or gas companies? If you’re a member of Congress, the odds are about one-in-five that the answer is yes..."

I'm sure that has no effect on foreign policy towards oil producing countries. But trying to convince Congress that Trump having financial interests in Russia is a bad thing, when 1 in 5 members of Congress have financial interests in other countries through oil stocks, will be pretty hard to do.

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Another dumb post should be in rant,don't you think Trump finances weren't scrutinized for 4 yrs before he took office,another annoying attempt of selfish liberals,then they whine Trump is wasting money,this wastes millions,when are these posts going to be scrutinized,any kid living in a basement can read something he likes doesn't have to be true

Yeah, what the hell does OP think ? What the hell is this thread about ? How dares he question Trumps finances??!!!!! I want a Thread about Clinton organisation, Obumer and fake CNN !!!!!

Yeah! Get with the program. Didn't you read the memo?

Hey, how come no deflection yet? Way behind in a response time.

But all is fair game at this time.

What if Mueller finds out Trump has been commiting crimes with Russians going back to the Soviet era? Would that be an issue? What if it turns out that his connections to Putin are not new, and that Trump has facilitated money laundering with Manafort's assistance to Russian mob oligarchs dating back to the 1990's? What if it turns out that Putin has video and audio tapes of Trump with Moscow hookers that go back to 2000? Would that be beyond the statute of limitation?

These are fair questions to ask. Please contribute.

All the debate about the Statute of Limitations is all much ado about nothing. Since the gist of the investigation is collusion and maybe whether Trump helped the Russians because they owned him financially, one included crime would be conspiracy. Every overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy begins the Statute anew. Any act included in a cover-up, like firing Comey, or Sessions lying, is an act in futherance.And it's any act by any co-conspirator that triggers the SoL extension.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Oldtimer2

Can you show us his tax returns? every other candidate released theirs.
If he has nothing to hide he would be transparent but no he is attempting to shut every investigation down.
Just a question for you when he does get charged and all the evidence comes to light will you just accept it or continue to lick his arse?.

Yes, jump off a bridge because everyone else is...

Transparency... Im not sure he ever said anything about transparency. How about as transparent as the ACA. I mean come on, he did it for political reasons because it was the smart thing to do. I'm more than positive there's more than questionable things there. But republicans get HAMMERED every time about their returns. So if it's going to feed the opposition, why do it. I think you can that.

Regardless of party or person, if damning evidence is correct and true, I support conviction. Even so much so, I wish there were higher punishments for people in government more so than regular citizens. Because they are in a position where they can ruin people's lives etc, and if they use that power then the punishments should be worse than for you and me.

Rumor has it, he's been doing a little money laundering for the very corrupt, and very rich Vladimir Putin.
Doesn't anybody have any interest in investigating that to see if it's true or not?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Even proven tax evasion has a statute of limitations.
Six years.
But I don't think they're looking at his financials for tax evasion.
They're looking for financial ties to Russian money laundering.

a reply to: Vector99

Trump should throw the liberal media into a frenzy and grant pardons to all being investigated, not because they are guilty, but because lib's will have a heart attack if he does.

Yeah we really need a president who trolls the entire nation just cuz he can...

a reply to: Oldtimer2

No. No one thinks that because it never happened.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough


Ok we will again have to wait and see but it looks like the red robe to the bull.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Another dumb post should be in rant,don't you think Trump finances weren't scrutinized for 4 yrs before he took office,another annoying attempt of selfish liberals,then they whine Trump is wasting money,this wastes millions,when are these posts going to be scrutinized,any kid living in a basement can read something he likes doesn't have to be true

Yeah, what the hell does OP think ? What the hell is this thread about ? How dares he question Trumps finances??!!!!! I want a Thread about Clinton organisation, Obumer and fake CNN !!!!!

Yeah! Get with the program. Didn't you read the memo?

Hey, how come no deflection yet? Way behind in a response time.

But all is fair game at this time.

What if Mueller finds out Trump has been commiting crimes with Russians going back to the Soviet era? Would that be an issue? What if it turns out that his connections to Putin are not new, and that Trump has facilitated money laundering with Manafort's assistance to Russian mob oligarchs dating back to the 1990's? What if it turns out that Putin has video and audio tapes of Trump with Moscow hookers that go back to 2000? Would that be beyond the statute of limitation?

These are fair questions to ask. Please contribute.

All the debate about the Statute of Limitations is all much ado about nothing. Since the gist of the investigation is collusion and maybe whether Trump helped the Russians because they owned him financially, one included crime would be conspiracy. Every overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy begins the Statute anew. Any act included in a cover-up, like firing Comey, or Sessions lying, is an act in futherance.And it's any act by any co-conspirator that triggers the SoL extension.

Which amounts to legal zero. Even if it could be show acutely to be the case , and its all simply hyper speculation at this point. Trump can fire Comey at any time without legal ramification and Sessions "lying" must be proved to be a direct link and even JS claiming so is still he said/she said non-actionable against POTUS. In short Sessions would be fall guy, quit and take baggage with him. This is not the boy scouts.

a reply to: Trihalo42

If you're trying to tie money into collusion, let me point out some other events in US history

That have nothing at all to do with this...

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Enough about trump lets try to make this about Obama.

Again.

a reply to: Logarock

Nobody is debating that he couldn't fire Comey for any reason at all.
But he admitted he fired him to stop the investigation.
Maybe that's still ok under the law but it stinks to high heaven and is a reason to investigate even further.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Logarock

Nobody is debating that he couldn't fire Comey for any reason at all.
But he admitted he fired him to stop the investigation.
Maybe that's still ok under the law but it stinks to high heaven and is a reason to investigate even further.

Well its clear that some believe the firing smells of guilt. Comey's problem is that he was cleary political minded and the show was all about him. He was compromised before Trump was ever sworn in for petes sake. Trump only kept him on as a show, political, for as long as he did. The Comey/Trump story is really only a Comey story.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Logarock

Nobody is debating that he couldn't fire Comey for any reason at all.
But he admitted he fired him to stop the investigation.
Maybe that's still ok under the law but it stinks to high heaven and is a reason to investigate even further.

An action does not have to be in itself illegal to be found to be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Question. what does Trumps finances before the election have to do with anything? Thats not legal,and i believe its grand fathering in stuff that does not even apply to elicit peoples feelings. This is why our justice system is flawed. Emotion and not facts are being used.

The total loyalty given to Trump is amazing. The mere mention of Investigating his finances and they attack.

There may or may not be something in his finances but let them check, if he is as innocent as you claim he is, then nothing will be found.

His own words come back to bite him in the butt "Donald Trump Suggests States Not Turning Over Voter Details Have Something To Hide. By Trump being resistant to this, you have to ask "just what is he hiding"..