Trump administration lets his bankers off the hook

[RandomGuy]

Crooked Donny lets the bank he owes money to, Deutsche Bank, off the hook for laundering money for... guess who?


The Trump Administration just published a small notice in the Federal Register announcing that it would waive the outstanding criminal sanctions against some of the world's largest banks, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank.

The banks were facing sanctions stemming from a variety of wrongdoing, including the trillions' worth of fraud in the LIBOR scandal, and Deutsche Bank's role in laundering $10B for Russian oligarchs.

https://boingboing.net/2018/01/10/tough-on-some-crime.html–

[RandomGuy]

What nothing from the bootlick crowd?

Don't tell me you all are going to ignore this conflict of interest.

[Blake]

Did they forgive his debt?

[boutons_deux]

Trump Administration Waives Punishment For Convicted Banks, Including Deutsche — Which Trump Owes Millions

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/trump-administration-waives-punishment-convicted-banks-including-deutsche-which?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Total corruption

Crony capitalism

Trash hiding his huge, criminal DB in the gang of miscreants

[RandomGuy]

Did they forgive his debt?

Don't think so. They aren't stupid, and know what kind of firestorm that would cause.

[boutons_deux]

I wonder if the German Financial authorities will be HELPING Mueller get correct and complete INCRIMINATING Financial records out of DB

[boutons_deux]

DB was one of the foreign banks bailed out by the US in the Banksters Great Depression, and has still been flirting with bankruptcy recently

[Blake]

Don't think so. They aren't stupid, and know what kind of firestorm that would cause.

So what does Donald get out of this

[TSA]

What nothing from the bootlick crowd?

Don't tell me you all are going to ignore this conflict of interest.

muh outrage

“In late 2016, the Obama administration extended temporary one-year waivers to five banks — Citigroup, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank. Late last month, the Trump administration issued new, longer waivers for those same banks, granting Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Barclays five-year exemptions. UBS and Deutsche Bank received three-year exemptions.”

[RandomGuy]

muh outrage

“In late 2016, the Obama administration extended temporary one-year waivers to five banks — Citigroup, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank. Late last month, the Trump administration issued new, longer waivers for those same banks, granting Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Barclays five-year exemptions. UBS and Deutsche Bank received three-year exemptions.”

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[RandomGuy]

So what does Donald get out of this

Some sort of break on interest or payment terms. An unwarranted extension of further credit.

Easy to put in new funding that wouldn't have a chance, given his record, otherwise. Since he is president, every decision they make is suspect, even if it is innocuous.

The corrosive thing about potential conflicts of interest is that you can't know, and even if nothing goes on, the optics look bad, and tend to attract lawsuits. That is why GOOD business practices are to avoid even the appearance of such things by divestment.

[Mark Celibate]

OP is anti Semitic, we all know what you mean by letting “bankers” off the hook. Smh.

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

OP is anti Semitic, we all know what you mean by letting “bankers” off the hook. Smh.
:lol

[Mark Celibate]

OP wants the leader to go after “bankers.” Hmm

[Blake]

Some sort of break on interest or payment terms. An unwarranted extension of further credit.

Easy to put in new funding that wouldn't have a chance, given his record, otherwise. Since he is president, every decision they make is suspect, even if it is innocuous.

The corrosive thing about potential conflicts of interest is that you can't know, and even if nothing goes on, the optics look bad, and tend to attract lawsuits. That is why GOOD business practices are to avoid even the appearance of such things by divestment.

"The Labor Department said Wednesday that Deutsche Bank got no special deal, and noted that the Obama administration had originally proposed a more valuable waiver lasting five years, instead of the three ultimately granted."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/trump-lender-waiver-punishment-conviction-52266588

[boutons_deux]

So what does Donald get out of this

My guess is the deal was that convicted money-launderer, distressed DB agreed to take $100Ms, $Bs, in deposits from Pootin with the understanding that it would be loaned to Trash.

The interest rate wasn't that important. DB had only to make a couple points on the laundered loan money to Trash above what DB was paying Pootin on the deposits.

What was important was that Pootin let Trash knows where the DB loan money was really coming from, hint, hint.

[Spurtacular]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?

[RandomGuy]

"The Labor Department said Wednesday that Deutsche Bank got no special deal, and noted that the Obama administration had originally proposed a more valuable waiver lasting five years, instead of the three ultimately granted."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/trump-lender-waiver-punishment-conviction-52266588

(shrugs)

I'm sure that the Trump administration would *never* let one of Trumps business partners off the hook for something, or lie/excuse an action under a shield like that.

The problem with conflicts of interest is that you can never quite rule out some sort of favoritism. That is why they are so caustic, and why businesses avoid them if at all possible.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?

Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother fucker.

Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[RandomGuy]

OP wants the leader to go after “bankers.” Hmm

Two posts on the same topic, you are working hard on this angle. Keep working on that hard on. We'll see what pops up.

[Spurtacular]

Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother fucker.

Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.

[Pavlov]

You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.Conflicts of interest OK now.

[Pavlov]

And two Deutsche Bank lawyers were just appointed Deputy and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York....

[boutons_deux]

And two Deutsche Bank lawyers were just appointed Deputy and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York....

this is from The Onion, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/deutsche-bank-ties-may-spur-recusals-by-new-u-s-attorneys

America is fucked and unfuckable. The oligarchy is no longer bothering to hide its corruption.

[Blake]

And two Deutsche Bank lawyers were just appointed Deputy and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York....

K, now that smells.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?



Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother fucker.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[RandomGuy]

Conflicts of interest OK now.

But, but Clinton Foundation!!! That is really, really important... until Trump does something an order of magnitude worse. You will notice that the bootlickers haven't been talking about it recently. I doubt that is a coincidence.

[Spurtacular]

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. Was there a particular word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please highlight the word that is unfamiliar to your stupid ass, and preventing you from answering the question.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?



Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother fucker.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.


Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.

I'm not answering your fucking question until you answer mine, stupid mother fucker.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken-shit dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[Spurtacular]

I'm not answering your fucking question until you answer mine, stupid mother fucker.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken-shit dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, are the waivers wrong regardless of who is granting them? Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?



Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother fucker.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.


Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.


I'm not answering your fucking question until you answer mine, stupid mother fucker.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken-shit dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?


I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, are the waivers wrong regardless of who is granting them? Yes or no.

Ok, I seem to have broken the bot. You have failed the Turing test.

[RandomGuy]

The answer to my question, for a real human is:

"No, President Obama did not owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of the banks his administration was in charge of regulating".

President Obama did not have any conflict of interest involving personal indebtedness over a bank he owed a vast amount of money to.

[Spurtacular]

Ok, I seem to have broken the bot. You have failed the Turing test.

Seems your condemnation is conditional on not analyzing whether the waivers are good or bad in the first place. I've asked you multiple times to put forth a position, and you've ran / spazzed.

[RandomGuy]

With conflicts of interest, any decision has to be looked at through the lens of self-dealing.

Who benefits?

The banks Trump owe money to got multiple-year waivers of penalties for breaking the law. Why did they really get those waivers?

[Pavlov]

I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.
:lmao How long is that going to take you?

[Spurtacular]

The answer to my question, for a real human is:

"No, President Obama did not owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of the banks his administration was in charge of regulating".

President Obama did not have any conflict of interest involving personal indebtedness over a bank he owed a vast amount of money to.

Almost assuredly untrue. No doubt he has many of elite donors / benefactors with connections to the bank. By extension, he has a conflict of interest.

[RandomGuy]

Seems your condemnation is conditional on not analyzing whether the waivers are good or bad in the first place. I've asked you multiple times to put forth a position, and you've ran / spazzed.

No, you stupid mother fucker, you used your question to dodge mine. I am not letting your lying ass get away with it, you don't get to "boo hoo" over the fact I didn't let you get away with being dishonest.

Fuck right off, sophist.

[Trill Clinton]

http://78.media.tumblr.com/a94578d1022ca5c801d34d39bb77d3db/tumblr_ovnrvsGzQk1w3qlxzo1_500.jpg

[Spurtacular]

No, you stupid mother fucker, you used your question to dodge mine. I am not letting your lying ass get away with it, you don't get to "boo hoo" over the fact I didn't let you get away with being dishonest.

Fuck right off, sophist.

:lmao meltdown.

Here, I'll save us both a canned response:


[Smiley][Derision]

[RandomGuy]

Almost assuredly untrue. No doubt he has many of elite donors / benefactors with connections to the bank. By extension, he has a conflict of interest.

I have not verified that Obama has many elite donors/benefactors with connections to "the bank". :lol

[RandomGuy]

:lmao meltdown.

Here, I'll save us both a canned response:

Thanks, bot.

[Spurtacular]

I have not verified that Obama has many elite donors/benefactors with connections to "the bank". :lol

And yet you want to proclaim he had no conflict of interest. And now you're mad that you got caught slurping the kool aid.

[RandomGuy]

And yet you want to proclaim he had no conflict of interest. And now you're mad that you got caught slurping the kool aid.

(facepalm)

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

[Blake]

:lmao How long is that going to take you?

Lol

[Pavlov]

Lol
Might take him days tbh.

[Spurtacular]

(facepalm)

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

You mean facetious, actually. And it doesn't erase the reality that you are carrying Obama's water.

[RandomGuy]

Might take him days tbh.

Gleichschaltung

Read up on that word. Perhaps I worry overmuch, but I see attempts at it here.

[RandomGuy]

You mean facetious, actually. And it doesn't erase the reality that you are carrying Obama's water.


Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

[Spurtacular]

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

You do realize I've never said no conflict of interest doesn't exist? These are simple things you'd catch if you weren't too busy crying.

So, are the waivers good or bad? This question seems to have greatly scared you.

[RandomGuy]

You do realize I've never said no conflict of interest doesn't exist? These are simple things you'd catch if you weren't too busy crying.

So, are the waivers good or bad? This question seems to have greatly scared you.

Not, what I asked, stupid mother fucker.

Another change in topic, without addressing anything.

Unlike your dishonest ass, I don't mind answering your questions. I refuse to do so when you are being a dishonest shit, which means I will ignore them especially when you are using them to be dishonest or change the subject.

The waivers are neither good nor bad, but should be short, because having them in place for long periods of time diminishes the penalty due to the time value of money. Long periods for waivers are a way of reducing penalties without appearing to do so.

Now answer my question.

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

[Spurtacular]

Not, what I asked, stupid mother fucker.

Another change in topic, without addressing anything.

Unlike your dishonest ass, I don't mind answering your questions. I refuse to do so when you are being a dishonest shit, which means I will ignore them especially when you are using them to be dishonest or change the subject.

The waivers are neither good nor bad, but should be short, because having them in place for long periods of time diminishes the penalty due to the time value of money. Long periods for waivers are a way of reducing penalties without appearing to do so.

Now answer my question.

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

[smiley][derision]

That's why that is a common response to your tantrums, tbh. You're being obstinate. You've even went onto a new tangent while not answering the fundamental question of whether the waivers are bad in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

[smiley][derision]

That's why that is a common response to your tantrums, tbh. You're being obstinate. You've even went onto a new tangent while not answering the fundamental question of whether the waivers are bad in the first place.

I answered your question, as asked, stupid mother fucker. Don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand the answer.

[Spurtacular]

I answered your question, as asked, stupid mother fucker. Don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand the answer.

:lol You.just got done ranting about refusing to answer. Are the waivers bad irrespective of who issues them?

[koriwhat]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

no. he owes the $$$ back to the tax paying citizens of this nation for bailing out our shit banks here, laundering our money to pay for DACA bs and illegals, giving our money to fuck faces overseas, and more. fuck that puto!

[RandomGuy]

:lol You.just got done ranting about refusing to answer. Are the waivers bad irrespective of who issues them?

You can fuck right off. Not answering your question, until you answer mine, chickenshit. Quid pro quo.

I will not play your game on your terms.

[RandomGuy]

no. he owes the $$$ back to the tax paying citizens of this nation for bailing out our shit banks here, laundering our money to pay for DACA bs and illegals, giving our money to fuck faces overseas, and more. fuck that puto!

You do know the bailouts were approved by Bush, right?

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout

Any other derp you want to roll around in?

[Pavlov]

no. he owes the $$$ back to the tax paying citizens of this nation for bailing out our shit banks here, laundering our money to pay for DACA bs and illegals, giving our money to fuck faces overseas, and more. fuck that puto!:lol the banks paid back with interest. Taxpayers made over $87 billion profit on the total bailout program.


https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

[Spurtacular]

You can fuck right off. Not answering your question, until you answer mine, chickenshit. Quid pro quo.

I will not play your game on your terms.

Cept I already answered a question if this is quid pro quo. But I'll give you two. The Clinton Foundarion is compromised. Are the waivers bad irrespective of the issuer?

[Blake]

Cept I already answered a question if this is quid pro quo. But I'll give you two. The Clinton Foundarion is compromised. Are the waivers bad irrespective of the issuer?

Fuck you're an imbecile

[Reck]

Cept I already answered a question if this is quid pro quo. But I'll give you two. The Clinton Foundarion is compromised. Are the waivers bad irrespective of the issuer?

You cant even do simple google searches and here you are claming the Clinton Foundation is compromised. :lol

:cry Do your research and get back to me
*does so*

Derptacular runs away from thread. :lmao

[koriwhat]

You do know the bailouts were approved by Bush, right?


Any other derp you want to roll around in?

bailouts are like 2nd place trophies. they should never be given out.

[Spurtacular]

You cant even do simple google searches and here you are claming the Clinton Foundation is compromised. :lol

:cry Do your research and get back to me
*does so*

Derptacular runs away from thread. :lmao

:lol "Claiming" is stating the obvious.
:lol Today's tranny.

[koriwhat]

:lol "Claiming" is stating the obvious.
:lol Toda's tranny.

the regressives love that **** so much they'd rather turn a blind eye to her and her cronies crimes. fuck her, her cronies, and her supporters.