The NYT money-laundering story presents a fresh conundrum for Mnuchin.

[DetlefK]

Mnuchin argues (in opposition to what the law actually says) that Congress needs a "legitimate purpose" if they want to see Trump's tax-returns.

In 2016 financial analysts at Deutsche Bank found evidence that Trump might be involved in money-laundering and recommended informing US law-enforcement for a thorough investigation. Their efforts were sabotaged by senior staff and US agencies were never informed.
(I guess, Deutsche Bank knew that if the Feds were to go after Trump, they would never get their loans back.)

So...

If the US President is under suspicion of money-laundering, is that a "legitimate purpose" for taking a closer look at his tax-returns?

[watoos]

1. Good question to ask Mnuchin tomorrow.

[The Blue Flower]

2. This would make Mnuchin guilty of obstruction, wouldn't it?

He's covering the wrong butt. He should start looking out for his own.

[lagomorph777]

7. Munchkin had better hit the yellow brick road and fast.

[appal_jack]

3. Mnuchin be scoochin'.

Let's be reachin' for impeachin'.

-app

[SayItLoud]

4. Calling Ex SC justice Kennedy's son to testify before Congress and SDNY would be a nice start...nt

[pangaia]

12. YUP !!

[avebury]

13. As well as his Dad. Nt

[corbettkroehler]

22. Reminds Us That The SC Is The Only Federal Court Wihthout Ethics Rules From Congress

This is not a new problem but never has it needed addressing more than now!

[PatSeg]

5. Deutsche Bank was concerned

it would never get their loans back? Do they really not know who they were dealing with?

[DetlefK]

6. That's why they kept giving him loans:

They gave him the second loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first loan back.

They gave him the third loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first and second loan back.

They gave him the fourth loan, because otherwise Trump would go bankrupt and they wouldn't get their first, second and third loan back...

[kairos12]

10. Old Maxim

If you owe the bank $100,000 the bank owns you.

If you owe the bank $100,000,000 you own the bank.

[PatSeg]

21. And Trump pulled

that same crap on American banks. He holds them hostage and gets more loans.

[BSdetect]

8. Clearly some actual swamp draining never took place.

[duforsure]

9. munchkin is committing a crime

when the law states the taxes shall be provided period, and it's clearly being ignored,so he deserves consequences for this,or it'll get much worse. they should be made examples of to prevent more of this obstruction. he should be investigated and asked if he and trump conspired. he also needs to be asked if he knew of any illegal activities regarding trump, then if he lies he"s in deep trouble.

[Botany]

11. OK you have bank fraud and money laundering but really what about HRC's emails?

Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

[QED]

14. Benghazi!

[Botany]

16. Did you know that HRC used her email server to block a rescue mission from going to Benghazi?

[lunatica]

15. I expect that'll be in a tweet soon

Maybe even today.

And the mighty roar rising from MAGAville will be heard all over the land!

[kimbutgar]

17. I liked last night how 60 minutes had a money laundering segment

Educating the viewing tv audience to what is money laundering in prep for these disclosures.

[procon]

18. No, Dems can't appear to submit to these illegal

Republican demands. The law is plain and simple, and the Dems are clearly within their legal and statutory rights to demand any tax records, regardless of any reason.

Trump and his troop of brainless sycophants are acting above the law. They have no defensible position for not complying with the existing law... Just as other administrations have done before Trump.

By all means, Dems should investigate Trump's potential illegal activities in association with the bank, but that is a separate issue to the law that gives them the power to review any tax records.

[triron]

19. Mnuchin needs to be arrested immediately! This is fucking bullshit.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

20. It's a chicken and egg thing.

Could be wrong, but it's my understanding Congress needs some legitimate preemptive evidence - perhaps legally presented in court cases or perhaps items sent by a legitimate whistle-blower - in order for an official investigation with hearings to be triggered.

Except of course when Rethugs are in charge, multi-year investigations can be triggered by something Limbaugh or Alex Jones was overheard saying in a restroom in Peoria.

KY......