Trump pops up in Panama papers leak..

[exGOPer]

Well, if you like watching guests on a lefty network, here is another one who says the exact opposite. Personally, as I have said many times, go ahead and make my day and indict him. You will instantly create a witch hunter for Hillary and turn Trump into a martyr. And Mueller will end out disgraced like Comey after he loses. Doesn't get any better than that for me.
https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-trump-indictment-obstruction/2017/05/17/id/790662/

Hahahahahahhaha, stop, you are killing me.

 

[jem]

could someone tell me how its being argued that the person selling the condo is somehow guilty of money laundering?

We continually see this odd argument from anti trump people. once a seller opens escrow opens you don't care where the money comes from as long as it winds up in escrow in a timely manner. Prior to escrow you want to see proof the buyer has the financial strength to do the deal. I would not care if the buyer got his money from Putin or Bill Clinton as long as the money shows up.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

could someone tell me how its being argued that the person selling the condo is somehow guilty of money laundering?

We continually see this odd argument from anti trump people. once a seller opens escrow opens you don't care where the money comes from as long as it winds up in escrow in a timely manner. Prior to escrow you want to see proof the buyer has the financial strength to do the deal. I would not care if the buyer got his money from Putin or Bill Clinton as long as the money shows up.

Well, of course you would have to establish that the person receiving the money had knowledge of the source and was complicit in an organized attempt to circumvent federal or state laws.

Sometimes that is hard to prove even where it is true. And other times it obvious on its face but the government authorities are complicit in the coverup.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/

 

[gwb-trading]

If you are going to arrest every developer and real estate agent in the U.S. who sells a condo to a foreign corporation who pays using bearer bonds then you would have tens of thousands of people in jail. This is a common part of outsiders buying real estate in the U.S.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

bearer bonds

I'm sorry to side track things here but every time I hear that I think of the movie Die Hard. Anyone else? Sorry.

 

[jem]

as you know that would be a criminal conspiracy to launder the money.
The vehicle will not really matter.

my point is that the seller is not doing something wrong when selling a property to someone who may or may not be hiding money. (Unless they were in on it.)

Well, of course you would have to establish that the person receiving the money had knowledge of the source and was complicit in an organized attempt to circumvent federal or state laws.

Sometimes that is hard to prove even where it is true. And other times it obvious on its face but the government authorities are complicit in the coverup.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If you are going to arrest every developer and real estate agent in the U.S. who sells a condo to a foreign corporation who pays using bearer bonds then you would have tens of thousands of people in jail. This is a common part of outsiders buying real estate in the U.S.

Right, that would be a lot of people and it would be ridiculous. I think the lefties are arguing that it should just be applied to Trump.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’


Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

“There is absolutely enough for an obstruction case, I’d be happy to prosecute that one,” Wine-Banks concluded. “I think what people need to know is that putting a case together is like putting a puzzle together and you don’t have all of the pieces at once. You build them one at a time and circumstantial evidence is often more persuasive than direct testimony — if I see someone come into the room dripping wet with an open wet umbrella, I can circumstantially conclude that it is raining outside and I will be convinced that it’s raining.”

“We returned the indictments that led to the convictions before we had the smoking gun tape,” Wine-Banks reminded. “That was a very dramatic piece of evidence, but it’s not necessary.”

“I agree with Jill totally. There is enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump,” Akerman agreed.

The President cannot be indicted.