Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump’s biggest lender, is forced to submit documents after special prosecutor issues subpoena



Donald Trump’s personal banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.

Bloomberg reported early on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump’s biggest lender, had been forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information.

The new revelation makes it clear that Mueller and his team are investigating the president’s financial transactions. It is not clear whether Mueller is interested in the bank accounts because they are connected to the Russia probe or if he is investigating another matter.

Deutsche Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The bank told Bloomberg in a statement that it always cooperated with investigating authorities.

The news could also elicit a strong reaction from the president, who has previously said that any attempt to investigate his personal business dealings would go beyond Mueller’s investigative mandate and would represent a “violation”.

Trump has consistently denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia and has stated that he did not have any business dealings in Russia. Since then, news has emerged that the Trump Organization sold a significant number of its properties to Russian clients and explored opening a hotel in Moscow, though the plan never came to fruition.

The president has repeatedly criticised the Mueller investigation and, this weekend, alleged that the FBI’s reputation was “in tatters”. The attack followed the guilty plea of Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who is now cooperating with federal investigators.

Mueller’s investigators have, according to previous media reports, examined Russian purchases of Trump-owned apartments, the president’s involvement with Russian associates in a development in SoHo, New York, and the president’s 2008 sale of his Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch, Dmitry Rybolovlev.

News of the subpoena was not unexpected. The Guardian reported in July that executives at the bank were anticipating they would receive a formal demand for banking records about the president and had already established informal contacts with Mueller’s investigators.

But the development nevertheless represents a significant blow to the president personally and indicates that Mueller is not limiting his probe to Trump campaign officials.

Deutsche Bank has for months been the subject of intense scrutiny – especially by Democrats on Capitol Hill – because of its dealings with the president and his family, who are also clients. Trump owes the bank about $300m in loans that were extended to him before he became president.

The Guardian reported in February that the bank had launched a review of Trump’s account earlier this year to gauge whether there were any connections to Russia and had not discovered anything suspicious.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser in the White House; her husband, Jared Kushner, who is also a presidential adviser; and Kushner’s mother, Seryl Stadtmauer, are all clients of Deutsche Bank.
 
163777_846b0ff59f6e4b2a07d03ce3dea386f4.gif
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump’s biggest lender, is forced to submit documents after special prosecutor issues subpoena



Donald Trump’s personal banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.

Bloomberg reported early on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump’s biggest lender, had been forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information.

The new revelation makes it clear that Mueller and his team are investigating the president’s financial transactions. It is not clear whether Mueller is interested in the bank accounts because they are connected to the Russia probe or if he is investigating another matter.

Deutsche Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The bank told Bloomberg in a statement that it always cooperated with investigating authorities.

The news could also elicit a strong reaction from the president, who has previously said that any attempt to investigate his personal business dealings would go beyond Mueller’s investigative mandate and would represent a “violation”.

Trump has consistently denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia and has stated that he did not have any business dealings in Russia. Since then, news has emerged that the Trump Organization sold a significant number of its properties to Russian clients and explored opening a hotel in Moscow, though the plan never came to fruition.

The president has repeatedly criticised the Mueller investigation and, this weekend, alleged that the FBI’s reputation was “in tatters”. The attack followed the guilty plea of Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who is now cooperating with federal investigators.

Mueller’s investigators have, according to previous media reports, examined Russian purchases of Trump-owned apartments, the president’s involvement with Russian associates in a development in SoHo, New York, and the president’s 2008 sale of his Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch, Dmitry Rybolovlev.

News of the subpoena was not unexpected. The Guardian reported in July that executives at the bank were anticipating they would receive a formal demand for banking records about the president and had already established informal contacts with Mueller’s investigators.

But the development nevertheless represents a significant blow to the president personally and indicates that Mueller is not limiting his probe to Trump campaign officials.

Deutsche Bank has for months been the subject of intense scrutiny – especially by Democrats on Capitol Hill – because of its dealings with the president and his family, who are also clients. Trump owes the bank about $300m in loans that were extended to him before he became president.

The Guardian reported in February that the bank had launched a review of Trump’s account earlier this year to gauge whether there were any connections to Russia and had not discovered anything suspicious.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser in the White House; her husband, Jared Kushner, who is also a presidential adviser; and Kushner’s mother, Seryl Stadtmauer, are all clients of Deutsche Bank.
Get excited. Good Lord
 
Have they been subpoenaed?
Three Things to Know About the Latest Fusion GPS Subpoena Fight
The research firm behind the so-called 'Steele' dossier is fighting a congressional subpoena for its clients' bank record in federal court.
By Cogan Schneier | November 30, 2017



leon_richard_18.JPG-image616x372.jpg
Richard Leon. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM.


The standoff between Fusion GPS and House investigators over bank records raises an important legal question, and the judge handling the case is not happy parts of it are continuing behind closed doors.

In a hearing Thursday in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon criticized lawyers from both sides for what he said was a “very troubling” volume of sealed documents. In the case, Fusion GPS, the firm behind the now-infamous unverified dossier that contains salacious claims about President Donald Trump, sued its bank last month to block it from complying with the House Intelligence Committee’s subpoena for records about the firm’s clients.




The parties reached a confidential agreement in late October, but Fusion moved to reopen it on the grounds the committee wants 70 pages of records the firm doesn’t think it’s entitled to. The hearing Thursday was held in two parts: one open to the public, and one behind closed doors. It also features big-name lawyers: Fusion GPS is represented by a team from Zuckerman Spaeder, which includes partners William Taylor as well as Steven Salky, who argued Thursday. Also on the Fusion team is a group from Cunningham Levy Muse. The bank is represented by Duane Morris’ Joe Aronica, and Thomas Hungar represents the committee.

Here’s what to know about this case:

Unprecedented question in D.C. Circuit: The case deals with a separation of powers question that has yet to be answered in the D.C. Circuit. That’s whether a court has the authority to evaluate a congressional subpoena to a willing, private third party at the request of another private party. Fusion GPS has sued the bank, whose identity remains anonymous in court though press reports indicate it is TD Bank, to stop it from complying with the committee’s subpoena.

Salky told Leon that Fusion GPS is being forced to turn over records that aren’t pertinent to the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election, and that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights to freely associate with clients without the government peaking in.

Hungar, however, said that while there are situations where court’s can step in to block congressional subpoenas, this isn’t one of them. He said the burden is not on the committee to show the “pertinence” of the records, but rather on Fusion to show it has a clear and compelling legal right to block the subpoena. He said they’ve shown no such right.

As for the First Amendment issue, Hungar said that for protection to apply, Fusion must prove it’s an “association,” which it can’t. He added Fusion cannot assert that right on behalf of its customers.

Leon’s transparency concerns: Leon began the hearing by scolding the parties for concocting a “whole host” of sealed documents. He said he’s concerned about the lack of transparency in the case, especially because it presents a “relatively discreet legal question.”

Leon lamented that he had to hold the hearing in two parts, adding it was ”very troubling” the court may not be able to issue a public opinion due to the sealed filings, or issue one “that shows what really happened.”

Implications for law firms: After Fusion and the House came to their agreement last month, news surfaced that two law firms, Perkins Coie and Baker & Hostetler, had paid the company. Perkins retained Fusion to do research in connection with its representation of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and Baker & Hostetler did so for research related to its representation of a Russian company in litigation.

According to Fusion, the House committee wants 19 records related to law firms paying the company for its services. Though the records in question only show how much a firm paid without indicating exactly what it paid for, they would still reveal which firms paid the company for its services. During the hearing, Salky said that in addition to other concerns, it was possible that the names of those firms could be leaked to the media or otherwise made public.
 
Three Things to Know About the Latest Fusion GPS Subpoena Fight
The research firm behind the so-called 'Steele' dossier is fighting a congressional subpoena for its clients' bank record in federal court.
By Cogan Schneier | November 30, 2017



leon_richard_18.JPG-image616x372.jpg
Richard Leon. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM.


The standoff between Fusion GPS and House investigators over bank records raises an important legal question, and the judge handling the case is not happy parts of it are continuing behind closed doors.

In a hearing Thursday in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon criticized lawyers from both sides for what he said was a “very troubling” volume of sealed documents. In the case, Fusion GPS, the firm behind the now-infamous unverified dossier that contains salacious claims about President Donald Trump, sued its bank last month to block it from complying with the House Intelligence Committee’s subpoena for records about the firm’s clients.




The parties reached a confidential agreement in late October, but Fusion moved to reopen it on the grounds the committee wants 70 pages of records the firm doesn’t think it’s entitled to. The hearing Thursday was held in two parts: one open to the public, and one behind closed doors. It also features big-name lawyers: Fusion GPS is represented by a team from Zuckerman Spaeder, which includes partners William Taylor as well as Steven Salky, who argued Thursday. Also on the Fusion team is a group from Cunningham Levy Muse. The bank is represented by Duane Morris’ Joe Aronica, and Thomas Hungar represents the committee.

Here’s what to know about this case:

Unprecedented question in D.C. Circuit: The case deals with a separation of powers question that has yet to be answered in the D.C. Circuit. That’s whether a court has the authority to evaluate a congressional subpoena to a willing, private third party at the request of another private party. Fusion GPS has sued the bank, whose identity remains anonymous in court though press reports indicate it is TD Bank, to stop it from complying with the committee’s subpoena.

Salky told Leon that Fusion GPS is being forced to turn over records that aren’t pertinent to the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election, and that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights to freely associate with clients without the government peaking in.

Hungar, however, said that while there are situations where court’s can step in to block congressional subpoenas, this isn’t one of them. He said the burden is not on the committee to show the “pertinence” of the records, but rather on Fusion to show it has a clear and compelling legal right to block the subpoena. He said they’ve shown no such right.

As for the First Amendment issue, Hungar said that for protection to apply, Fusion must prove it’s an “association,” which it can’t. He added Fusion cannot assert that right on behalf of its customers.

Leon’s transparency concerns: Leon began the hearing by scolding the parties for concocting a “whole host” of sealed documents. He said he’s concerned about the lack of transparency in the case, especially because it presents a “relatively discreet legal question.”

Leon lamented that he had to hold the hearing in two parts, adding it was ”very troubling” the court may not be able to issue a public opinion due to the sealed filings, or issue one “that shows what really happened.”

Implications for law firms: After Fusion and the House came to their agreement last month, news surfaced that two law firms, Perkins Coie and Baker & Hostetler, had paid the company. Perkins retained Fusion to do research in connection with its representation of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and Baker & Hostetler did so for research related to its representation of a Russian company in litigation.

According to Fusion, the House committee wants 19 records related to law firms paying the company for its services. Though the records in question only show how much a firm paid without indicating exactly what it paid for, they would still reveal which firms paid the company for its services. During the hearing, Salky said that in addition to other concerns, it was possible that the names of those firms could be leaked to the media or otherwise made public.

Note further that much of this legal action is only required because the DNC says it has no records of payments, does not know who within the DNC was responsible for managing the contract or approving payments. They just say that somehow a lump sum payment went to the law firm to do undisclosed good things for the DNC.

In addition, the DNC violated campaign contribution laws by giving large sums of money to a law firm pay off dirty campaign activities but hiding it as a "legal expense" in campaign finance reporting.

The legal actions above are attempts to find out what the dnc should be able to report.

They have plenty to hide here and they are hard at it.
 
Three Things to Know About the Latest Fusion GPS Subpoena Fight
The research firm behind the so-called 'Steele' dossier is fighting a congressional subpoena for its clients' bank record in federal court.
By Cogan Schneier | November 30, 2017



leon_richard_18.JPG-image616x372.jpg
Richard Leon. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM.


The standoff between Fusion GPS and House investigators over bank records raises an important legal question, and the judge handling the case is not happy parts of it are continuing behind closed doors.

In a hearing Thursday in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon criticized lawyers from both sides for what he said was a “very troubling” volume of sealed documents. In the case, Fusion GPS, the firm behind the now-infamous unverified dossier that contains salacious claims about President Donald Trump, sued its bank last month to block it from complying with the House Intelligence Committee’s subpoena for records about the firm’s clients.




The parties reached a confidential agreement in late October, but Fusion moved to reopen it on the grounds the committee wants 70 pages of records the firm doesn’t think it’s entitled to. The hearing Thursday was held in two parts: one open to the public, and one behind closed doors. It also features big-name lawyers: Fusion GPS is represented by a team from Zuckerman Spaeder, which includes partners William Taylor as well as Steven Salky, who argued Thursday. Also on the Fusion team is a group from Cunningham Levy Muse. The bank is represented by Duane Morris’ Joe Aronica, and Thomas Hungar represents the committee.

Here’s what to know about this case:

Unprecedented question in D.C. Circuit: The case deals with a separation of powers question that has yet to be answered in the D.C. Circuit. That’s whether a court has the authority to evaluate a congressional subpoena to a willing, private third party at the request of another private party. Fusion GPS has sued the bank, whose identity remains anonymous in court though press reports indicate it is TD Bank, to stop it from complying with the committee’s subpoena.

Salky told Leon that Fusion GPS is being forced to turn over records that aren’t pertinent to the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election, and that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights to freely associate with clients without the government peaking in.

Hungar, however, said that while there are situations where court’s can step in to block congressional subpoenas, this isn’t one of them. He said the burden is not on the committee to show the “pertinence” of the records, but rather on Fusion to show it has a clear and compelling legal right to block the subpoena. He said they’ve shown no such right.

As for the First Amendment issue, Hungar said that for protection to apply, Fusion must prove it’s an “association,” which it can’t. He added Fusion cannot assert that right on behalf of its customers.

Leon’s transparency concerns: Leon began the hearing by scolding the parties for concocting a “whole host” of sealed documents. He said he’s concerned about the lack of transparency in the case, especially because it presents a “relatively discreet legal question.”

Leon lamented that he had to hold the hearing in two parts, adding it was ”very troubling” the court may not be able to issue a public opinion due to the sealed filings, or issue one “that shows what really happened.”

Implications for law firms: After Fusion and the House came to their agreement last month, news surfaced that two law firms, Perkins Coie and Baker & Hostetler, had paid the company. Perkins retained Fusion to do research in connection with its representation of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and Baker & Hostetler did so for research related to its representation of a Russian company in litigation.

According to Fusion, the House committee wants 19 records related to law firms paying the company for its services. Though the records in question only show how much a firm paid without indicating exactly what it paid for, they would still reveal which firms paid the company for its services. During the hearing, Salky said that in addition to other concerns, it was possible that the names of those firms could be leaked to the media or otherwise made public.

Deutsche denied The Democrats in Congress attempt to get Trumps bank records,The DOJ/Special Council had to get them.Has the DOJ subpoenaed them yet?
 
Back
Top