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