Will Deutsche Bank be Trump's nemesis?

The culprit

It is pathetic that a bank would have an "anti-money laundering" department but in my naive moment there is the realization that these are the times and all we can do is cope with it. Deutsche Bank employees in that section reportedly...

"recommended turning over information about transactions by entities owned by President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to a government watchdog in 2016 and 2017, but the bank's executives apparently declined to do so."

It had to do with transactions connected to the now-dissolved Trump Foundation, discovered by the bank's computer system, designed to reveal illegal activity. Five current and former employees were involved, which led to a later report they thought should be sent to the Treasury Department for investigation. It wasn't. The transactions weren't spelled out...

"some of them involved money going between the entities and foreign companies or individuals."

The NYT says it ain't necessarily true because "sometimes complete large cash transactions that can cause a review to be triggered without any actual wrongdoing." Thus, the reason for no report. Apparently Deutsche Bank treads lightly on this kind of issue according to Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank employee who looked into some of the transactions. She continued, “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”

The Hill reported...

"McFadden told the Times that she was fired after she questioned the bank's practices and has since filed complaints to regulators about what she sees as its lack of enforcement."

Well now, that doesn't seem kosher, and is it just another example of the shady deals of the Trump family? The Hill also says...

"Deutsche Bank has loaned billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies. Federal and state authorities are currently reviewing the bank's relationship with President Trump."

The NYT also revealed the...

"staff of Deutsche Bank were hired especially for their expertise of money-laundering."

Now doesn't that beat all. Trump biographer David Cay Johnston said...

“We know for a fact that Donald Trump has been involved in money laundering in the past, fined for it. We know that Deutsche Bank is fined over $600 million just for laundering money for Russian oligarchs and are nondenial denials. The Trump Organization said we never heard of this. Why would you? It was locked up in the bank. The bank said we didn’t stop anyone. The story makes it clear.”

Finally, from the Times...

“So, in addition, The Times has a pregnant line in it. It says that is there are other, ‘politically connected people’ who also were swept up,” Johnston said. 'It’s clear that David Enrich, a very good reporter at The New York Times has seen these documents and other people whose money laundering suspicion of money laundering activities were also apparently quashed by the people at the private banking unit of Deutsche Bank in New York. This is for Donald Trump a really serious problem.'”

We can only hope that David Cay Johnston's assessment is correct.

In private, Republicans want Trump impeached

Impeachment is in the air all around Washington with Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that Donald Trump is just "goading" the House to impeach him. I did a recent blog post, "American public should be itching for Donald Trump impeachment?" that had high viewer appeal and has been typical of this issue all along. Now this...

"Appearing on CNN's "New Day," Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) confided to host Alisyn Camerota that multiple Republican senators agree with Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but are afraid to go public at the moment."

This has been classic GOP reaction to pretty much everything Trump has done, working not for the American people, but only for the Republican Party protecting this idiot. AlterNet reported Coons saying...

“Those who have read the Mueller report cannot avoid the conclusion that the president and some of his advisers engaged in profoundly disappointing, reprehensible conduct that would rise to the level of obstruction of justice.“

As this same conclusion reverberates around Washington, Congress sits on its fat asses doing nothing. In another post, "Two valid reasons for Donald Trump's impeachment," the most crucial was the letter that 450 ex-prosecutors had signed to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. That number has now surpassed 800. But none of this seems to sway the Oval Office lunatic since he has recently blocked around 20 requests from the Democratic House for information.

Camerota asked, “You don’t think Republicans are thinking that privately, do you?” The conversation continued...

“Yes,” the Democratic senator replied without hesitation.“
What makes you say that?” the CNN host asked.
“Conversations,” the now hesitant Coons replied.

“So it’s not so private,” Camerota continued, before adding, “You have spoken to Republicans who think it is impeachable?”

“There is a difference between thinking the Mueller report reveals conduct that is deeply disappointing, inappropriate, borderline or actually illegal and saying they would vote to remove the president,” Coons admitted. “Many revealed concerns privately about the Mueller report in part because of the gap between what Attorney General [Bill] Barr characterized as being in the report and what was actually in the Mueller report for those who have taken the time to read through it.”

Okay, there is general consensus that Donald Trump obstructed justice. It apparently exists across both aisles, non-partisan, so what are the ramifications of this charge. First, obstruction of justice is a felony. Second, it is punishable by up to five years in prison.  Third, there is no statute of limitations. I'm good with all three but let's not wait, the maniac is constantly at work.

Washington Merry-go-Round political wrap-up

POLITICAL MAYHEM TAKES A LEFT TURN

This idiot likes robocalls...Bernie Sanders and AOC want lower interest on loans...Nobody wants to work at Facebook...Is Trump believable on Iran?...Trump staffers ignore boss on outrageous demands,until he forgets them...SCOTUS pick Kavanaugh confirmed with dark money...GOP 
Rep. Justin Amash says Donald Trump "has engaged in impeachable conduct"

Biden depends on unity to beat Trump's "divider in chief"

Joe Biden-Unity in 2020

It's not enough that Democrats are angry with Donald Trump's election and the direction he has taken the country in. There also has to be an influx of Republicans who have made a left turn and feel the same way. In a former blog I quoted a reliable source that said 20% of Trump's 2016 voters have soured on him. I closed the post saying, 'Hold that thought.' Joe Biden avoids the anger for Trump approach with an appeal for unity in America. Will it win in 2020?

Joe Biden doesn't believe anger will win in 2020, even when T-rump used " it to win over the Republican base in 2016, saying he gladly carries the 'mantle of anger.'" He's been mad ever since and just look at what shape he has put the country in. A good economy does not excuse the Oval Office lunatic's white nationalism, bigotry, blatant racism and women's abuse, to name only a few. I did a post yesterday that explains it: "Less than half of Trump supporters like him."

Rebecca Traister, author of the book "Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger," retorted, "Biden is 'deeply wrong' that 'Anger at injustice has catalyzed transformative change; 'unity' has not.'" Another voice...this a writer from Rolling Stone, Jamil Smith added, "Women, people of color, and other Democratic constituencies aren't angry like Trump and his followers. They've been pissed off in a whole different way. "She doesn't explain how.

Biden also mentions reaching across the aisle as an approach to unifying Congress, something that many Democrats have criticized. With people like Senate head, Mitch McConnell, sitting on the other side of the aisle, I can understand the reluctance of the Dems. And then there's Barack Obama, to back or not to back. To begin with, the former president hasn't offered and second is whether this would help or hurt Biden.

Lee Drutman of Vox speaks of the Joe Biden “epiphany” theory "that Republicans will have an epiphany about the power of bipartisanship once Trump is gone and start working with Democrats again." Drutman says no way, and I wholeheartedly agree, at least as long as the ogre of the Senate is still around. Drutman argues...

"The problem with Biden’s theory is that Republicans’ hostility to Democrats did not begin with Donald Trump (see, the Obama administration). 

Today, as in 2012, the partisan hostility is highly transferable. It is based neither in opposition to one president nor loyalty to another. It is based in the underlying zero-sum electoral logic that defines the American two-party system and the winner-take-all elections that make the two-party system possible."

Not said, but certainly not forgotten, is racist Mitch McConnell's hatred of President Barack Obama, with his vow that he would make Obama a one-term president if it was the last thing he ever did. He didn't, which shows what a lowlife this jerk is, and the fact that he may not be as powerful as he thinks he is, perhaps just a fat blowhard. Biden talks about Trump's divisiveness while we regularly see the maniac's favorability improve, still holding on to his loyalists.

In one case in Pennsylvania, Joe Biden jumps back and forth between his unity issue and the put-down of Donald Trump. This state is important to Biden in 2020, where Trump barely won in 2016; part of the "blue wall" of Democratic industrial states. The former V.P. is headquartered in Philadelphia and in rallies continued to call Trump the 'divider in chief.' Biden spent time on the issues, including climate change and health care, making comparisons with Obama.

If there is anything this country needs it is unity, something we haven't seen for years, back through many presidents. We need it on the local level, between states, and most of all in Washington. The U.S. Congress is in a complete state of diversity, inconsistency, division, discord, strife, disarray, hostility, almost all-out warfare. There aren't enough antonyms of unity to show the disunion of that body of outright incompetent morons. Maybe Joe has the right idea.
 

Wrap-up from weekend left field politics

POLITICS ON THE RUN

GOP says Jared Kushner clueless...Nobody wants to work for Trump...4 ways Trump really screwing rural voters...Trump wants "patriotic" sacrifices from farmers in trade war...Trump says unwed LGBT couples' kids aren't citizens...James Carroll of The Atlantic says, "abolish the Priesthood"...Former Regulatory Nuclear Commission member says nuclear power industry should be banned

How old is too old for U.S. president?

The question is, does age matter?

Art Cullen in the Guardian says that age-70 may be too old for being President of the United States, referring to Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the latter turning seventy before inauguration. Considering who will be running in 2020, Trump will be 72, Biden 76, Sanders 78 and Warren 69. He cites Ronald Reagan in his 70s while in the White House, and Nancy Reagan and Al Haig actually running things as the Gipper passed into neverland.

Here's how Cullen describes the situation...

"Trump is batty and losing it more each day. Bernie impresses as a grumpy and impatient Trotskyite, Biden as a familiar Irish pol who wants to hug you up and keep you warm, hearkening to days when unions had teeth and Scranton had steel. They confront a candidate written by Rod Serling for the Twilight Zone."

 "Warren seems a pup in their presence. Young of mind, she is a fan of Game of Thrones. She is full of vim and vigor and maybe is no more likely to die of a stroke than Pete Buttigieg, 37. She could beat me in a foot race any day of any distance. But if she wins she will be 75 at the end of her first term – slightly older than Reagan at the end."

You'll note here that he spends twice as much space on Warren as any of the other three. After this Cullen draws comparisons between Einstein, Mark Twain, Eisenhower and the Kennedys, alluding to their accomplishments at various ages. He says, "War would be rarer if women ran the world." then adds, "But we are talking, in the main, about three old white men. At least the national cable media are. Biden nearly has the nomination cinched, to hear it told."

That doesn't bode well for Democrats with the rest of the field relatively weak, except, perhaps, for Kamala Harris. Sorry, but I still have a warm spot for the Bern, and as a Democratic Socialist myself, believe that most of his issues could fly. My concern is Medicare for All-Single payer plan, and just how feasible that is. Here's a definition...

"Single-payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand-name single-payer plan. Some advocates also like the term 'national health insurance.'”

Consider the possibility of not doing away with insurance companies, which would be an almost impossible sell. Have the government use insurance companies, allocating coverage out to the lowest bidder, with obvious restrictions on the quality of coverage. I solidly believe Bernie deserves a shot at the presidency with his honesty and integrity.  And I have no problem with his age...I am 86.

John Bolton,war monger, is in Trump's head

John Bolton the warmonger

Here's how AlterNet put it: "The most dangerous man in the world is at Trump’s right hand." That's heavy since we have so many opportunities for conflict with Trump in the White House, Iran and No. Korea to name a couple. Just recently Bolton warned the Tehran government that...

“any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

Trump followed with talk about negotiations commenting... “I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.” This sort of rhetoric makes both of these dufuses sound like the idiots they are, but one is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and that is purely pathetic. In the Venezuelan situation, Trump said "his national security adviser was trying to pull him “into a war.” This is when...

John Bolton demanded military plans to oust the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. Trump said no.

Bolton demanded “regime change” in Iran and the Pentagon produced a plan to put 120,000 troops into the region, Trump said no. Sounds like John Bolton just can't catch any luck with his warped ideas, and rightfully so. The Guardian said...

"Donald Trump’s national security adviser [John Bolton] is stoking tensions with North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, in line with decades of taking the most hawkish position on any given issuer"

The Guardian puts John Bolton in the "driving seat" on all three of the uprisings, No. Korea, Iran and Venezuela, also described by the publication as "one of the most fervent believers in American military power ever to work in the White House." The hawk who sits right next to the Oval Office. Bolton would like to go to war with...well, just about anyone. It seems that climbing to the pinnacle of warmongering is John Bolton's goal.

And linking to the past through NBC News...

"Former national security adviser Michael Flynn told investigators that people linked to the Trump administration and Congress reached out to him in an effort to interfere in the Russia probe, according to newly unredacted court papers filed Thursday."

Bolton's predecessor has just rocked Donald Trump's boat again with this new revelation...

"The court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller is believed to mark the first public acknowledgement that a person connected to Capitol Hill was suspected of engaging in an attempt to impede the investigation into Russian election interference."

After checking Twitter, nothing from Donald Trump at this writing, but you can bet there will be.

Please give me your comments

Under 50% of Trump supporters like him

I really am loyal but I don't like the jerk. Those are my words, but it is actually a fact that less "than half of Trump supporters ascribed any positive traits to their chosen candidate, according to a June-July 2016 Pew survey." The survey also found...

"Very few consider him well-informed or admirable. Only a minority expected that he would be willing to work with those he disagrees with, that he could unite the country, and that he is honest."

And there's more...

"They did, however, feel that he has deeply held beliefs and that he is extreme."

Wow! I knew that Donald Trump supporters were double-digit maniacs, but this kind of information leads me to believe that they are complete morons. There are more interesting demographics...

Trump draws more men than women; And the voters are older, 40+,the 18 to 29-year-ages don't care for him; his followers are uneducated; they are in a lower income group; his flock is mostly white, only 7% black, around 25% Hispanic; and he attracts evangelicals, which is a huge surprise based on his blatant immorality; Finally there is a racial diversity with his anti-Muslim and immigrant policies.

The study by Pew Research, one of the highest rated and respected in the field, illustrates just what the typical Trump supporter looks like...

"They are primarily white, older men with low levels of education and income. They believe that immigrants and free trade deals have harmed their earning power (and they're right about the free trade deals), and they prefer an America in which white people are the majority. Trump's worldview and platform ​seem to resonate with them."

But, looking toward the future, Pew also claims that 20% of Trump's voters have soured on him. Please hold that thought until 2020.

Please let me have your comments.

Did Trump predict his war with Iran?

CURRENT WRAP-UP ON TRUMP'S IRAN WAR

Trump and man who would start ANY war-John Bolton

In 2011, Trump warned "a desperate president" would attack Iran to win re-election...Trump plans air strikes and ground invasions against Iran...No de-escalation plan for Iran threat...Bernie Sanders says, war with Iran would be "many times worse than the Iraq War"...John Bolton most likely responsible for Iran aggressiveness...Heavily armed US carrier strike group headed for Iran

Is Trump's White House another version of "The Godfather?"

Just call me Donald Corleone

Just yesterday there were new discoveries about Michael Flynn that shows he was approached by individuals allied with Trump who wanted to influence his dealings with Mueller and perhaps buy his silence.” Does that sound like Marlon Brando telling one of his made-guys to take care of a situation? This is brand new from the Mueller Report and "confirms the feeling a lot of folks have had, that we might just be living in the midst of a mob movie, "according to CNBC.

Here's more from MSNBC...

"Rachel Maddow had a similar reaction, calling the news a 'mafia-esque' move' from the president’s goon squad.”

As we know, Flynn lasted only 24 days on the job, and T-rump had been warned repeatedly not to hire him. There's more...

"He pleaded guilty back in December of ‘17, lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, and he’s been cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation ever since.”

And here's something even more startling and disturbing...

"A newly unredacted court filing made public late today says Flynn told Mueller’s team that people connected to Congress as well as individuals tied to the Trump Administration tried to influence his cooperation with the Russia investigation."

Both Congressional staff and people from the Trump administration tried to influence Michael Flynn. At this point, how could there be any doubt over Donald Trump's obstruction of justice?

More reading on Donald Trump's obstruction:

"Trump would be in jail if he wasn't president?"

"Trump even worse than Nixon says John Dean"
Please give me your comments on this issue 

A plethora of must see news from the left

MAKE A LEFT TURN FOR THE NEWS

Locking up guns can save kids' lives...Duh!...No one wants to rent in Trump's Tower...People think identity theft can't happen to them...NRA is imploding after head gun nut Wayne LaPierre shops in Beverly Hills...Why Donald Trump worried about Michael Flynn...In 2011 Trump warned "a president" would attack Iran to get re-elected...

Joe Biden's left turn could pick up Bernie followers

Time to fish or cut bait

The headline says that Joe Biden is breaking with some of Obama's policies, even when he craves the former president's endorsement. Biden thinks it's “'an obligation' to provide health insurance for undocumented immigrants," according to The Hill. Joe wants a$15.00 minimum wage; Obama wanted $10.10. Biden has endorsed a public option on health care, creating a government insurer to compete with private firms . Obama said no to this.

What we have to consider is that Obama may have changed his mind on several of his policies when in office and updated his thinking to 2019. Biden is running on his own but still wants to be remembered as Barack Obama's Vice President. Amie Parnes of the Hill says...

"Biden also needs to move to the left, though not too far, and in all three cases the breaks with Obama-era policies allowed Biden to shift to a more liberal position."

"This is important for a candidate who is battling a number of rivals who have embraced more progressive policies."

Okay, I am a Progressive that strongly backed Bernie Sanders in 2016. I have not yet made a decision for 2020, but with Joe Biden holding such a huge lead, with the likelihood today that he will be the nominee, I still want to see more lean to the left, like a stronger stance on Gun Control. We could also use more emphasis on the racial problems that continue to plague this country. Biden thinks so, and there seems to be a consensus of opinion, he is best Democrat to beat Trump.

If Joe Biden does support a “middle of the road” strategy on climate control as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez expounded at a Howard University event with Bernie Sanders, he'll not only lose my vote but also a number of votes from other Progressives that value the ecology of this country and the world. Democratic strategist Basil Smikle comments...

"Biden has the potential to win over younger voters, who according to polls have not particularly gravitated to his campaign, and older Democrats — who the polls show are embracing him."

A recent poll shows that younger voters are deserting Bernie Sanders, and his average donation has dropped under $27.00. I truly hate to see this but it could be caused by the fact that Bernie has not expanded his platform enough, particularly regarding gun control and the racial situation. But Biden is weak in both areas as far as I am concerned. It's only May of 2019 and anything could happen between now and the Democratic Primaries.

Please let me have your comments.

The ceaselessness of Donald Trump obstruction

The FBI recently "opened a public corruption investigation into whether Florida massage parlor owner and Republican donor Li “Cindy” Yang illegally funneled money from China to President Donald Trump’s re-election effort," according to Salon. Seems Yang funneled $5,400 through one of her employees and the FBI wants to know more. Here is the scenario...

"Yang, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, is accused of selling access to Trump and his family to Chinese businessmen. The FBI is investigating whether foreign money was then used to buy tickets to political events, which would constitute illegal foreign donations. It is also illegal to reimburse someone for a political contribution without disclosing the original source of the money."

It seems "that nine of Yang’s family members, including Peranio, all made maximum $5,400 donations to Trump’s re-election committee prior to her photo with the president." You might remember Yang's massage parlor as the one where New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft was arrested for soliciting prostitution. The question...is there some kind of influence from China in the recent trade negotiations the Trump administration has been conducting?

Philip Hackney, tax professor and former attorney at the Internal Revenue Service, says, "the IRS must turn over Trump’s returns to the House Ways and Means Committee. "Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin retorts...

"a resounding no – at least when it comes to the request submitted by Democratic Congressman Richard Neal on April 3. Mnuchin said it 'lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.'”

We've listened to Donald Trump and his minions long enough to know you cannot believe anything they say. The use of the words "not anything," meaning how much you can believe in describing one's truthfulness, is pretty pathetic when you are talking about the President of the United states and his Cabinet and staff. But then Hackney alludes to the fact that on the one side you have the law, and then there is political reality. They'll never get the records, he quips.

The Congress is not a law enforcement body and "does not have a legitimate purpose to investigate the questions it is pursuing." This is the statement of White House counsel Pat Cipollone to Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). The Trump administration doesn't want anymore poking around the Mueller Report, which...

"constitutes a sweeping rejection — not just of Nadler’s request for White House records but of Congress’s standing to investigate Trump for possible obstruction of justice."

And the beat goes on. There's more from Cipollone...

“Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice,”

Nadler called this preposterous, actually just another ludicrous Donald Trump tactic to con the American public.

Please give me your comments.