More brainstorming about the SARs. Like who is this "whistleblower" ?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

No one I heard asked WHY the person was looking for the Cohen SARs.

They said thousands of law enforcers could see the SAR data base.

Why was HE needing to look at them - if he wasn't with the feds in NYC or w/ Mueller team? Obviously he must not have been. Is there another jurisdiction looking at Cohen?

I have heard Avenatti talk about SARs before and challenging the ptb to release the SARS

Could it be that he found out that anyone of thousands could look at the SARs - found someone - and then the person noticed there were three and two were missing? Or - one of the thousands just looked out of curiosity - got pissed off - and called Avenatti?

[jberryhill]

1. It sounds to me like what happened after Obama's SSN was disclosed

I used to follow birther antics for fun and amusement.

In one of the tax filings which the Obamas disclosed, Barack Obama's SSN was unredacted. Naturally, this disclosure led to all sorts of freelancing by people attempting to pull credit reports and by misusing the E-verify database (the system used by employers to confirm SSN validity).

What they found was that his SSN failed an E-verify check:



What they failed to realize was that (a) casual poking around with the database is an unauthorized use, and (b) because Barack Obama's then-current SSN (he has likely been assigned another one) had been published and people were doing exactly this type of stuff, records pertaining to that SSN were rendered unavailable.

There are a LOT of people with access to the SAR database. There is an ongoing criminal investigation into the persons and transactions involved in which there is apparently a good deal of concern about tipping off suspects into the details of that investigation.

At the end of the day, the banks in question have already produced their records of the underlying transactions to investigators, so it is not as if the information could have "disappeared" in any event.

IMHO, I wouldn't read a whole lot into the fact that one of the thousands of people with access to the database can't find a record that they were seeking out of personal curiosity.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Right - absolutely likely those missing SARS were restricted/hidden on purpose. It

just seems unlikely that someone could/would have tapped into the d-base and deleted the old ones (major breach) - infinitely more likely that they were purposely hidden.

But, I still wonder about the thousands who did have access to view. Let's just say 50 people in law enforcement were "casually poking" to see Cohen SARs...surely there is an audit list of views. Wonder what the consequences are for looking at SARs which one has no business looking at. And, if there were a bunch of people - how do you know who screen shot it or just typed it on paper off the screen view.

Also, seems odd to me that so many can see ALL the SARs out there - likely millions. yet, not sure how you could control. Strikes me that it would be a nightmare to even begin to investigate why/if anyone looked at a record they shouldn't be looking at.

[jberryhill]

9. And that audit list would be of keen interest...

...to an investigator looking for evidence of a coverup.

If someone who is otherwise authorized to access the database for legitimate purposes is going off on their own personal adventure, they could end up interfering with a legitimate investigation.

The notion that all "authorized users" can be trusted flew out the window with former DU heroes like Snowden and Manning.

[B2G]

2. And how did he know how many SARS should even be there? nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Think the other two were referenced on the one they got. I really hate to

say this - but this whistle blower is starting to sound fishy to me. That's all we need - for Avenatti to lose credibility.

[B2G]

10. What I don't understand is why he went to Avenatti

If he was so alarmed, why not go to Meuller or Treasury?

The fact that this was leaked to him and not the proper authorities is really rather alarming. He could be in serious trouble.

[jberryhill]

11. In order to have Avenatti tip off potential suspects of the criminal investigation

[B2G]

12. Why would he want to do that? nt

[jberryhill]

16. Who is the "he" in that question?

The leaker/whistleblower? We don't know their intentions.

However, if I was inclined to help out Trump and Co., and I had access to information for which the public disclosure of said information would be helpful for the purpose of potentially compromising the ongoing criminal investigation, I would CERTAINLY want to get that information into Avenatti's hands because it is virtually guaranteed it will come out.

People wanted public hearings on Ollie North, and got them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

North was tried in 1988. He was indicted on 16 felony counts, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989 to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.

The individual members of the prosecution team had isolated themselves from news reports and discussion of North's testimony, and while the defense could show no specific instance in which North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue. Consequently, North's convictions were reversed. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991.

So, sure the Congressional hearings made great TV. They also fucked up the ability to convict him.

That fact pattern is not directly applicable here, but publishing information about all of the suspicious transactions provides a great opportunity for suspects to make sure their stories are consistent with the facts and with one another.

[bitterross]

3. The SAR released refers to other SARs apparently. This doesn't compare to the SSN thing.

The SAR referring to others would be reason for someone to look for the other SARs. Then, become very concerned when they were not there.

In this article it says the SAR that got release referred to other SARs.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whistleblower-michael-cohen-suspicious-activity-reports_us_5afcd865e4b0779345d5b933

So, out of curiosity or whatever, I guess someone went looking for them and didn't find them. Given that the whistleblower must have given copies to Farrow, that person must be close to where they were filed or where there are hard-copies kept that are more difficult to "disappear." All of that is pure supposition on my part, of course.

I don't think this compares to the Obama SSN story. Obama's citizenship questions, the birther thing, was pure BS from the beginning. There was no reason for a responsible person to go digging around in the records for that at all. NONE.

In the case of Cohen and 45 and their cult it makes tons of sense to not trust them and assume they would do something like try to disappear evidence. They lie so much and so often. The only real question now is: "What else have they done to hide their misdeeds?"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. I think the SSN example just shows that where there is curiosity and access to

data available - it can happen. How many looked up Cohen SARs would be interesting to know.

Not sure I follow you..can you expound?

Given that the whistleblower must have given copies to Farrow, that person must be close to where they were filed or where there are hard-copies kept that are more difficult to "disappear."

[jberryhill]

7. I believe you missed the point entirely

I don't think this compares to the Obama SSN story. Obama's citizenship questions, the birther thing, was pure BS from the beginning. There was no reason for a responsible person to go digging around in the records for that at all. NONE.

Of course the Obama thing was BS from the beginning, but that's not even the point.

The only real question now is: "What else have they done to hide their misdeeds?"

One of the behaviors of people seeking to hide their misdeeds is searching for evidence in need of hiding.

FINCEN's own website states that access to records deemed sensitive can be restricted.

It is simply not believable, since Mueller was on this months ago, that Mueller does not have all of the relevant records. In addition to obtaining the relevant records, then if one is investigating a coverup, one would also want to know who else is attempting to retrieve the same records.

There are thousands of people with access to the SAR database. Just as you say there was "no reason for a responsible person to go digging around in the records" relating to Obama, apart from those who are investigating this particular matter, there is likewise no reason for random people with access to that database to go digging around in it. Someone who is doing such digging, with no particular reason to do so, would likewise be a person who would potentially be engaging in a coverup, and doing initial work into what records need to be covered up.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Wonder if other banks have access to the SAR d-base - probably not. But if I

was looking into a suspicious client in my bank it might be helpful to see if they are doing the same to other banks.

[kentuck]

8. Could be some mid-level employee at the bank?

That leaked the information?

Avenatti likely had the information over a week ago. He mentioned on TV that the Treasury Dept should release the SARS on Michael Cohen's accounts.

Mueller may have already had that information?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Sure it could. Don't believe it was ever stated exactly where the info came from that

Avenatti got. He could have gotten it from a bank and then studied up on how the d-base operated and who had access and teamed up with them. It's hard to believe Avenatti got it from a bank and then low-and-behold - someone leaks the FINCEN dbase. Know he's lucky but not that lucky

I am hoping there truly is a network of Dems in positions where important information can be uncovered. We are getting nowhere it seems in the public sector arena. We need all hands on deck

[jberryhill]

15. "We are getting nowhere it seems in the public sector arena"

The public arena is not where criminal investigations are properly conducted.

The ONLY reason that Ollie North ended up not going to jail was a result of quibbling over the status of information obtained in the Congressional hearings and its use in the criminal proceedings.

If someone wants to fuck up a criminal investigation, there's more than one way to go about it. Obstruction is one. But another is to compromise the investigation by publishing information that allows the suspects to get their stories straight.

Simply because we can cheer to the tune of "Oh, wow, look at this information that has come out" and get all sorts of rah-rah feelings about that, doesn't mean it is necessarily a good thing, in the larger scheme of things.

I would not call the Mueller prosecutions "getting nowhere".

[jberryhill]

17. Most likely - someone interfering with a criminal investigation

Link to tweet

...whether well-intentioned or not.