Trumps Loans had Russian co-signers

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
It's also interesting that his lawyers are straight onto this piece of "FAKE NEWS" yet not a Tweet from Trump on the subject when he is normally the first one to call out "FAKE NEWS".

Again, this is NOT about his tax returns. It's about the ALLEGED Russian co-signers to Trumps Deutsche Bank loans. Deutsche Bank being involved in both issues is just another curiosity.

Actually it's not about either of those things.
It's about a rumour of a rumour that was reported as big news on a nationally televised show, which led to others propagating it, all because Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016 and liberals didn't get the President they wanted.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If Russian oligarchs did co-sign loans he’s not the only international businessman they’ve ever done that for

This claim has been made before .

One anonymous source last I checked .

If the claim is true when did it happen ? If it was 10 years ago there’s no reason for Trump to hide it. A press release saying they cosigned loans would cause the Russians to lose any leverage they supposedly had.

Russia Russia Russia is wearing everybody out . With the exception of the screaming left And the Democrats propaganda arm the main stream media.

There’s nothing illegal about it . Just more speculation like Trump money laundering .

And there’s probably more reasons this is another affictitious claim by the vindictive left .

But that certainly won’t stop them anyway .

Interesting comment on Trump's Lawyers response:

Note that the letter only disputes that the loans were for Trump personally, and asserts the loans were for Trump controlled corporate entities. IT DOES NOT appear to explicitly dispute the report that Russian oligarchs co-signed the loan.

Fmr NatSec Lawyer


Letter here.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Well this claim is starting to lay more claim to being BS... I never maintained I thought it was true, I was just speculating on if it was. I know better to take MSM with anything less than a grain of salt if there is no concrete evidence.

And there’s probably more reasons this is another affictitious claim by the vindictive left .

Probably. Journalism has seriously deteriorated over the years. I don't know of an outlet I trust, only a few real journalists, emphasis on a few.

We live in a world where there is talk radio on the right, and cable news punditry for the left.

Us independents don't have many places to go for truth only reporting.

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
Interesting comment on Trump's Lawyers response:

Note that the letter only disputes that the loans were for Trump personally, and asserts the loans were for Trump controlled corporate entities. IT DOES NOT appear to explicitly dispute the report that Russian oligarchs co-signed the loan.

Fmr NatSec Lawyer


Letter here.

It says multiple times in the letter Donald J Trump and Trumporg (Trump orginizations?).

I'm no lawyer though, so I'm not sure about the wording.

However, it doesn't help NBC said that the source didn't even see the documents.

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
Interesting comment on Trump's Lawyers response:

Note that the letter only disputes that the loans were for Trump personally, and asserts the loans were for Trump controlled corporate entities. IT DOES NOT appear to explicitly dispute the report that Russian oligarchs co-signed the loan.

Fmr NatSec Lawyer


Letter here.

Do you ever feel that blindly posting lies from others is something you should stop doing?
You didn't even read the letter you linked, did you?

originally posted by: olaru12
I thought the rumor came from Q one of the right wings favorite sources.

You really want to go there? I mentioned 4chan because that's where the infamous "peeing hookers" rumor originated. Chris Steele literally just collected anonymous claims off the internet and called it "research."

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Of course they do. Does anybody care that the FBI, CIA and NSA looked into for over 2 years and found nothing using the most sophisticated tools

How do you know they found nothing? Surely they don't disclose everything (or anything) from their investigations. That would come out if there was some sort of legal preceding.

In any case, you're more than welcome to ignore the piece. But don't be surprised if this intrigues other people, it's an interesting story.

Trump was investigated for being in bed with Russia. Not Istanbul, Russia. So if he had a high level Russian government official co-sign for a loan, it's a problem. A big one. But as has been said, a large group of people who wanted only one thing, To tie Trump to Russia, All missed this? It wasn't important enough to mention in the Mueller report?

I'll go out on a limb here and say if it's true, it's bad. And it would undermine most if not all of what was denied. If it's not true, what then? No big deal. Until the next shiny squirrel.

I am a bit more concerned that the Mueller report never even bothered to look at Russia ties to anyone but Trump. There seemed to be quite a few others that merit a mention.

a reply to: network dude

Yea, as things are transpiring, this looks to be untrue. Just a pundit who (allegedly) heard something he couldn't hold his tongue on before doing due diligence to verify.

I've seen it happen a lot with juicy stories from the MSM.... So earlier, I was just trying to go through the mental checklist of what seemed to be plausible and what didn't.

But I liked your response a lot for what it's worth, and agree with your position given various scenarios.

a reply to: UKTruth

But where was the Russian signature? What if Deutsche Bank (Russian Laundromat) lent Trump the money directly from one of their other clients and just acted as middle man?

Looks as if Lawrence will be addressing the issue on his program.. looks to all be BS..

www.cnn.com...

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell says he was 'wrong' to report thinly sourced Trump finances story

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell said he was "wrong" to report a thinly sourced story about President Trump's finances on his prime time show Tuesday night. "Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president's finances that didn't go through our rigorous verification and standards process," O'Donnell said in a tweet Wednesday afternoon. "I shouldn't have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight."

oops
or not

a reply to: UKTruth

That's not a court document and is not necessarily true, in it's assertions that Donald Trump is the only guarantor on all the loans in question.

I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night. He did a good job of covering his bases. He emphasized that he didn't know if it was true, and informed his audience that his source was unnamed. He said over and over, as he presented his source's claims, "If true.."

It's no different that when Trump says "people are saying...I don't know personally, but people are saying..."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I see what you're saying, but to me the difference between journalism and punditry is journalists verify their stories before running it.

originally posted by: strongfp

So you dont care if someone has been part of an international money laundering scheme?

At least the Clinton foundation is common knowledge. While trump attempts to hide it or disassociate with it.

Does this mean he was a part of it, or did he just do international business like he has done for 50 years?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

That's not a court document and is not necessarily true, in it's assertions that Donald Trump is the only guarantor on all the loans in question.

I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night. He did a good job of covering his bases. He emphasized that he didn't know if it was true, and informed his audience that his source was unnamed. He said over and over, as he presented his source's claims, "If true.."

It's no different that when Trump says "people are saying...I don't know personally, but people are saying..."

Try keeping up with the discussion.
I know it's not a court document, it's in response to a tweet that was used to suggest that Trump's lawyers did not dispute that Russians had co-signed the loans.

Oh, and O'Donnell only did a good job of apologizing for his naff journalism - as posted above.

"Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president's finances that didn't go through our rigorous verification and standards process," O'Donnell said in a tweet Wednesday afternoon. "I shouldn't have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight."

All I see with this story is "We KNOW Trump did something wrong, let's investigate him!" which will turn into "well, we didn't find anything illegal but we KNOW he did something wrong so he's guilty!"

End of story.

It's pretty sickening that the media can make up any wild accusation they want without having any proof or even circumstantial evidence and sell it like it's true. What's worse is people believe this trash. I don't care who they do it to, it's wrong every single time and they do it frequently.

a reply to: HalWesten

You give the left too much credit for having integrity.

They never report when they do not find anything. They just go away. That is what's happened with Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff. Jerry Nadler is a tougher nut to crack.

a reply to: Xtrozero

From what I have gathered, he never openly did international business until he ran into bankruptcy. Around that same time he started getting involved with foreign banks, two biggest were German, guess... also conveniently around the same time the USSR fell and random Russian billionaires started popping up, and Eastern European politicians and businessmen started to become filthy rich. They were hoarding illegal soviet money, and continued to gain new currency through criminal activities and launder through various European banks to clean it up into Euros and US dollars.
The whole thing is a racket.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah well. He made it clear that it wasn't verified.

In other news, the IG determined all 4 FISA warrants are illegal!