Despite Coming O'Donnell Retraction, I Still Think It's True

[Me.]

You know the truth when you hear it and what he said about Russian oligarchs being co-signors for the traitor's loans the clouds parted and it felt true. Perhaps he should've waited for collaboration or a 2nd or 3rd source but when this is all over and we look back, I bet we find it's true. It's the only thing that makes sense regarding the great mystery.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Is he retracting or just saying he wasn't able to get confirmation?

I thought he was pretty careful about the way he reported it in the first place.

[Me.]

3. Not Sure

“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. 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.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212417196

[zentrum]

53. Really surprised at Lawrence.

Thought he would be more careful and journalistic---all the t's crossed etc.

Has he learned nothing from what happened to Dan Rather? Hope we don't lose him over this. MSNBC must be pissed.

[Me.]

63. This Move Is Being Placed At 'Andrew Lack's' Feet

He's the guy who didn't like MSNBC going left, rehired Brian Williams and was behind the entire Megyn Kelly/Tamron Hall fiasco

[Maraya1969]

92. I think it is the truth and I'm glad he told everyone

It's been so damn frustrating watching that bastard get away with everything. Now at least people have been given information that will probably end up being his impeachment walk.

Just look at how everyone is talking about it

[triron]

93. Sad that MSNBC corporate didn't provide Lawrence more support. They kowtowed to Trump.

[MFM008]

16. I bet this

Is what he does.

[underthematrix]

2. I think this was genius and Lawrence is an American hero

Link to tweet

[Me.]

4. Either Way, We Win

[underthematrix]

5. And there it is. You got that right

[pbmus]

6. And this whole shitshow of Fox lies will come tumbling down...

v

[pangaia]

32. UNLESS, there really is no evidence...

[underthematrix]

40. Well you know there's evidence because he's fighting so hard to keep the

Congress and the American people from seeing what Deutsche Bank has. So yeah he's lying again.

[pangaia]

42. Yeah, I agree....I was just being the contrarian.. that's my job in the world..

[soldierant]

52. Either there is solid evidence he is trying to conceal

or he has gone totlly insane. Oh - wait. Well, they're not lutually exclusive - both could be true.

[katmondoo]

34. I believe it is true. I watched that show last night and he made many statements about

having only one source. It really explains how the Trumper got the bank to loan him money, they did not give him money because they love him. I think they just want to keep the co-signers names secret.

[uponit7771]

45. O'Donnell, " ... don't fling me into that brier patch Mr Trump ..." 😎

[Peace06]

82. Under the matrix

Totally agree! It's out there now! I think it's great! Let trump see how it feels. Repugs do it all the time.

[HiloHatti]

7. I too, Was Not Surprised By Lawrence's Reveal

No financial institution in the world would risk its charter or its assets by loaning money to a six time bankrupt loser without additional collateral, worthy co-signers, and/or personal guarantees from creditworthy individuals.

[kentuck]

8. The lawyer for Deutsche Bank said they had the tax returns of more than one person.

A couple of names were "Redacted" in the documents that Rachel showed on her program last night. She had audio from the court room with the lawyer and Judge attempting to negotiate what the Court could see? If they are going to apologize, they should wait until Mr Trump shows the American people what are in those tax returns? The Congress should look at those documents before they go to Court.

[HiloHatti]

12. Here's The Link and an Exert From Deutsche's Court Filing

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6354209/8-27-19-Deutsche-Bank-Letter-Trump.pdf

“Based on Deutsche Bank' s cuITent knowledge and the results of the extensive searches that have already been conducted, the Bank ,has _in__its_possession_tax _returns Qn _either_draft or as_- filed form) responsive to the Subpoenas for ! Redacted :
i Redacted :Inaddition, the Bank has such documents related to parties not '···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·
named in the Subpoenas but who may constitute "immediate family" within the definition provided in the Subpoenas. The Bank does not believe it possesses tax returns responsive to the Subpoenas for individuals named in the Subpoenas other than those identified above.
The Bank files this letter under seal only for the limited purpose of redacting the name(s) of the specific individual(s) for whom the Bank has disclosed it has responsive tax returns per this Court's order. The Court has asked us to explain why the Bank seeks to treat that limited portionoftheresponseasconfidential. Thefollowingstatutory,contractual,andprivacy concerns have informed the Bank's reluctance to publicly identify tax-return-related information related to specific individuals. The Court may wish to take these concerns into account in determining what portions of our response letter should be made publicly available.”

[FM123]

26. Thanks for the link!

[triron]

9. I'm with you. Funny how so many peope here were so quick to scold O'Donnell.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. and not ONE rump supporter will care when, not if,it is proven he is a fucking

traitor..which is what this is all about

we have bigger problems than a man child in the WH, his FILTHY followers are a problem

[Scotch-Irish]

90. Amen and amen!!

His followers are bringing this country down. It's Fox news that is the real culprit.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Personally, I thought Lawrence was careful how he reported it.

[Me.]

13. I Did Too

But corporate lawyers being what they are...

[Mr.Bill]

38. The fact is he has to do

what MSNBC's lawyers want him to do.

It would be really cool if he punked Trump with corroborating sources tonight, though.

[alp227]

79. Case in point: CBS withholding the tobacco whistleblowers story

back in 1995:

The basis for CBS's concern with the original interview was not a threat of a suit for libel, network officials said. Rather, the officials said they feared, in part, that they might be held legally responsible because the executive had an agreement with the company, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, not to disclose internal company matters.

Ultimately, Jeffrey Wigand finally got to tell his story in 1996.

[hughee99]

83. Exactly, the journalistic standard should be that it's okay

To report a story, as long as you let people know up front that you don’t really have solid evidence to support it... and it’s something I want to believe.

[Claritie Pixie]

11. Lawrence will explain on his show. If it's true, it will come out.

He's not saying it isn't true, just unable to verify.

[lunatica]

14. O'Donnell was clear in saying it was a one source story

It’s easy for him to prove since it’s on video.

[Ptah]

15. An unforced error on his part.

[uponit7771]

46. Unnnn, brings attention to Red Don's crookedness ... we'll see. I was critical earlier

[dawg day]

17. There's a famous "mistake" made by Woodward and Bernstein

You can see it in their film All the President's Men. Bernstein said later:
"We had the story right, the substance of it. What we had wrong was the attribution. It had never come before the grand jury. It was the substance that was really important — at the same time, we had not been diligent in nailing this down, this one aspect of it." (It was about Haldeman being at the center of the crooked operations... he was, but it hadn't come out in the grand jury at that point.)

I was thinking of that-- O'Donnell might be saying not that it's false, but that he should have gotten more attribution before he reported it.

[BigmanPigman]

31. Good analogy...I think you're right about this.

[Duppers]

44. Totally agree.

[usaf-vet]

33. I believed Dan Rather's report from the moment it was published.

https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/10976-focus-dan-rather-was-right-about-george-w-bush

Enough said!

[dawg day]

36. And now a bunch of other reporters (and maybe whistleblowers) will be on this-

So if it's true, there's much more chance it will come out.

Of course, Trump will get away with this too.... sigh.

I have to fight despair.

[MFM008]

18. Team Larry!

Maybe it was planned this way.

[UTUSN]

19. K&R for me, too!1

[Me.]

22. ...

[malaise]

20. Truth will out

I bet we find it's true

[Hoyt]

21. Until substantiated, it just gives trump mileage with claiming press is unfair.

I know GOPers do it all the time, but they are ignorant white wingers and proud of it.

We shouldn’t be.

[Kid Berwyn]

23. Trump says 13 documented lies a day...

...including all manner of libel and slander about private citizens, orders aids to break the law and promises them pardons, versus Larry the Hogpilot journo who made plain what he was saying about a public figure and now has to apologize for something he didn’t do, libel a sitting and shitty President.

[amuse bouche]

24. L.O. is no fool. I bet he knew exactly what he was doing

[yaesu]

25. I don't think, I know its true. nt

[Duppers]

48. Beyond doubt in my head.

The naysayers haven't read enough.

It may take until next summer before enough documentation comes out. But then again, there's Pelosi twiddling her thumbs. We need documents that only impeachment hearings can bring to light.

[Bradical79]

27. I wouldn't be surprised

Just need to corroborate the story, do some digging. Make it more solid. He got too excited and ran with it too soon.

[IggleDuer]

28. Doesn't Spanky often say "Many, many people say ...."

... to cover up what he just made up?

[usaf-vet]

29. O'Donnell went on to claim that "if true, that explains every kind word Trump......

.....has ever said about Russia and Putin.” If true seems like another way of saying, maybe or allegedly or maybe possibly it could be that many people are saying.

After all, it seems it could have just been a joke said in jest.

"If true" the "Chosen One" needs to prove his declaration. "Chosen One", show us a heavenly miracle alter the path of the hurricane bearing down on Puerto Rico. Without using a nuclear weapon. Better yet make it a snowstorm to prove there is no climate change.

But for now, I see merit in the claim that the Russians co-signed your loan. After all, daddy can't.

[texasfiddler]

30. How many networks covered the Obama birth certificate crap?

If he has a source against Trump throw it out there. I bet Trump doesn’t want to discuss it for obvious reasons. Either way let’s find out.

[lanlady]

35. Yes and no

Yes, Trump had dealings with Russian money-launderers, and maybe some Russian entities even co-signed his loans. But unlike what O'Donnell said, it's hard to believe any Russian oligarchs would do that - why would they? Everyone knew Trump was a bad risk and would probably stiff his partners. He's never been a good business proposition to people seeking return on investment. A person like Trump, of such enormous consequence to the Russian state (as an asset/useful tool), would be handled by the SVR through trusted agents and cutouts and multiple layers.

That's where Laurence went waaayyy wrong. imho.

[bucolic_frolic]

41. Yeah, those Russian oligarchs use extreme vetting

in their business deals for sure.

[triron]

57. Why not oligarchs working for the SVR? Putin was clearly grooming Trump.

[lanlady]

71. True, a lot of Russian oligarchs are beholden to the SVR

but, why would they leave a signed paper trail to Trump sitting in a German bank? It would leave the oligarch too exposed.

The SVR controls a lot of criminal gangs with international reach, illicit financiers, and thousands of dodgy shell companies for moving money around - my best guess is that those are the elements who've been filling the Trump Organization coffers. They exist at the intersection of the criminal world and the intelligence services. Which makes it even worse for Trump, by the way...

[Me.]

74. What's The Difference Between The Two

None as far as I can see and as far as being afraid of a paper trail, I bet the on;y thing/person they fear is Putin.

[90-percent]

68. Oligarchs

Oligarch's became Oligarch's at the pleasure of Putin. I think they would gleefully follow any order Pootie-poot gave them. If they want to remain morbidly wealthy and living.


-90% Jimmy

[lanlady]

72. Putin doesn't need oligarchs for this

He has all of Russian intelligence at his beck and call. There's probably an entire large department at SVR dedicated solely to compromising and controlling Trump, and reporting directly to Putin.

It would be easy enough for the SVR to set up a bogus company with bogus corporate paperwork, in a position to co-sign loans for a failing New York businessman with no conscience but big political ambitions.

[Ellipsis]

37. The fact that the Donald didn't refute it when it broke...

speaks bolumes.

[bucolic_frolic]

39. Where there's smoke, there's fire

and this has generated a lot of smoke in 18 hours!

My guess, it's not entirely accurate, but collateral requires a cosigner, and that might be another corporation or legal entity. Foreign laws may have nuances we don't exactly understand in the US, especially filtered through various press outlets.

[RainCaster]

43. You have to listen to Rachel as well- she told us of the weasel words from Douche Bank's attny

That attorney said many different ways, "I can't give you any details without implicating my firm as well". However, he was not quite that plain-spoken. So what are they hiding? Is it that a massive money launderer (or two or three...) co-signed on DFT's loans? Was it part of a bigger laundering scheme that some very high-ups in DB participated?

[dchill]

47. It occurs to me...

...that Lawrence was trying to bait Trump into suing him. It worked for Tim O'Brien (a frequent Last Word guest.)

[Duppers]

50. That'd be a great strategy!

But then isn't the orange shitgibbon already defying court subpoenas?

This kind of law defying behavior is mind-blowing.

[chowder66]

49. Link to Lawrence O'Donnell's transcript

He says "if true" quite a bit.


http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/the-last-word/2019-08-27

[VOX]

58. Thanks for posting. n/t

[Duppers]

51. Absolutely!

Same here.

[Paladin]

54. I'm with Lawrence, until trump produces credible evidence to the contrary. (nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Of course it is true, we have known it for years.

[SCVDem]

59. Lawrence made it so clear

that even the thread here on DU was all wishful thinking that it was true.

This is nothing compared to Fox on a daily basis.

[Moral Compass]

60. I agree

It has to be true that he had co-signers. Whether they were Russian or Saudi—it doesn’t much matter.

Let’s see how this all plays out.

[TalenaGor]

61. fuck are u kidding me

[Vinca]

62. It'll come out eventually. Why else would a lone bank on the planet be willing to lend him money.

[patphil]

64. I think Trump is blowing smoke out his butt hole.

There is no way he would sue O'Donnell over this because he would have to show who the co-signers were to prove O'Donnell wrong.
And it's probably true that one or more Oligarch's did indeed co-sign.
Someone outside his family would have to, and he hasn't got any friends who would be willing to take on hundreds of millions in debt to help Trump get a loan.
His reputation is so shitty, they would have to know they would be stuck with the debt when he declared bankruptcy again.
The Russians are the only ones who would look forward to having a strong hook into Trump's financial empire.
They would own him.

Patrick Phillips

[Me.]

67. In Addition

Oligarchs were buying apartments in Trump Tower and one bought a house in Miami from him.

[The Liberal Lion]

65. Of course it's true

Fredo, I mean Don Jr., bragged about it.

[Bettie]

66. I think it is true as well

but hey, I guess it's time for another circular firing squad!

[debsy]

69. Agreed, just like the Steele dossier proved to be mostly true.

I do think that real journalists need to be held to a higher standard than the Roger Ailes model but I suspect you are correct - this is true and fills in a lot of blanks!

[EveHammond13]

70. 100% agree

[eleny]

73. The toothpaste is out of the tube and I look forward to Lawrence's heartfelt contrition

[Pompoy]

75. Love Lawrence, but he messed up

I'm sure that Deutchebank was encouraged by the Russians it was money laundering for, to give Trump the loan, but it's hard to believe that they co signed. As David Cay Johnson said to Lawrence last night, he would be very surprised that they would put it in writing.
Still, a lot might come up if the judges agree that the bank has to give their records to the committees in Congress.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

76. You'n'me both.

[Gothmog]

77. I also believe that this story is true

[Me.]

78. ...

[leanforward]

80. I, too, think the story is true, with a twist.

I like some of the above thinking. If not signatures of the same page. There is a letter or something out there that ties dRumpf to the paruskies.

[Me.]

81. It's a Waiting Game Now

and we shall see what we will see

[leftyladyfrommo]

84. It sounds right. It sounds like something he and his idiot

sons would do.

[PRETZEL]

85. Trying to catch up,

but, I like many others tend to believe that it is true. With all the various threads about this particular loan(s) there are still a myriad of questions that hopefully come to light.

One of the things that I may have heard is the nature of the loans. If I'm understanding correctly these were non-collaterized loans so naturally no Trump properties, either ones already in his portfolio or being used as collateral for the purchase, were used. That seems to make it a personal loan with only his income and credit worthiness as security. So, absent a co-signor, Trump's financial statements would be the basis for securing the loans. Here's my question on this, are they factually correct? And if not, who would know? Obviously Trump. Possibly Justice Kennedy's son who had a close working relationship with the Trumps? Possibly Michael Cohen? Possibly Alan Weiselberg?

If these loans were co-signed (and I'll assume the co-signors are Russian) who are they (naturally), what type of relationship did they currently have with DB (I would tend to think this would be important), what type of financial disclosures were presented to DB as assurances of repayment?

As I said, I do think Lawrence is confident that his source is correct. It is somewhat bothersome that (if I've heard correctly) his source has indicated that they have not physically seen the loan documents. That's troubling on it's face, which does lead me to believe that Lawrence's source has seen this before.

[Me.]

88. Allen Weisselberg, His Accountant

might know

[PRETZEL]

89. Oh, he definately knows. nt

[spanone]

86. release the loan papers and prove it, don.

[Me.]

87. Quite

[bdamomma]

91. me too.

makes alot of sense to me, that is why he is so beholden to the Russians and Putin, will not say one bad thing against them. POS

[triron]

94. kick for visibility

[Me.]

95. Thank You