Trump pops up in Panama papers leak..

Here4money said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-appears-panama-papers-time-article-1.3655007

For those that don't remember, big leak last year showing shady money laundering operations. Trump's sec. Of commerce also showed up dealing with Putin.
More...

Pretty meaningless. Someone (Process Consultants) bought and sold a condo in a Trump building. What is the big deal?

"The deal involved a mysterious Panamanian company called Process Consultants, Inc., which bought a 16th floor condo at the Trump skyscraper in 1991."
 
gwb-trading said:
Pretty meaningless. Someone (Process Consultants) bought and sold a condo in a Trump building. What is the big deal?

"The deal involved a mysterious Panamanian company called Process Consultants, Inc., which bought a 16th floor condo at the Trump skyscraper in 1991."
More...

My understanding was that it was a known shell company and or firm that established such with the purpose of laundering money or something to that effect.
 
gwb-trading said:
Pretty meaningless. Someone (Process Consultants) bought and sold a condo in a Trump building. What is the big deal?

"The deal involved a mysterious Panamanian company called Process Consultants, Inc., which bought a 16th floor condo at the Trump skyscraper in 1991."
More...
Bear Without Honey just falls all over himself to spread news that he hasn't read or understood. ---Classic---
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
Bear Without Honey just falls all over himself to spread news that he hasn't read or understood. ---Classic---
More...

Process Consultants was owned through so-called bearer shares, which can be used to transfer assets with complete anonymity. Such shares are popular among money launderers.

As has been the case with most Panama Papers revelations, there's no indication of who is actually behind Process Consultants or where that person's money came from.

While using bearer shares doesn't prove that Process Consultants was involved in something dubious, the quick condo flip is characteristic of money laundering.
 
Here4money said:
Process Consultants was owned through so-called bearer shares, which can be used to transfer assets with complete anonymity. Such shares are popular among money launderers.

As has been the case with most Panama Papers revelations, there's no indication of who is actually behind Process Consultants or where that person's money came from.

While using bearer shares doesn't prove that Process Consultants was involved in something dubious, the quick condo flip is characteristic of money laundering.
More...
And Bear Without Honey rushes to report this on the off-chance and hope that Trump is involved in something nefarious. But he has no clue whatsoballs out. He just throws crap against the wall hoping something will stick.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
And Bear Without Honey rushes to report this on the off-chance and hope that Trump is involved in something nefarious. But he has no clue whatsoballs out. He just throws crap against the wall hoping something will stick.
More...
H2h3az3n_400x400.jpg
 
I am sorry to hear this about Trump.

I hope he has the good sense to see where it is headed and resigns later today.

Nailed it! Caught selling a condo in Panama.


giggle.
 
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.
 
Spike Trader said:
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.
More...



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/

Since when did it require any evidence of any magnitude whatsoever to get an indictment on someone anyway? Prosecutors seek indictments often just to get the subpoena power they need to figure out whether they actually have a case. Going to trial and actually prosecuting is another matter.

I did not watch that msnbc interview with the Watergate prosecutors. Did the interviewer also ask them if they had enough evidence to get an indictment against the Clintons on the uranium deal? Oh, I see. They ran out of time and were not able to get to that.



And here is a little glimpse into the sense of judgement by the prosecutor who was being interviewed. Another corrupt abuser of prosecutorial power.

n 1989, there was a minor scandal after Wine-Banks convinced theIllinois Attorney General's office, of which Wine-Banks had once been the second in command, to assign a prosecutor to investigate aveterinarianwho she believed had negligently treated herDalmatian, leading to the dog's death.[6]After theChicago Tribuneran a story titled "Grieving Dog Owner Unleashes Clout With State", a former ABA president, Eugene Thomas, circulated a letter in which he said that Wine-Banks "does not understand the use of power and lacks a sense of decorum and propriety in professional matters" and should be dismissed by the ABA
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top