Mueller issues subpoena to Deutsche Bank in Russia probe

[paperview]

Deutsche Bank has not confirmed and there is no attribution. That is not journalism, it is gossip.

DB can't confirm, numbskull.

It would be a crime for them to do so.

I guess Mueller's word isn't good enough for you.

Oh, there was a subpoena. I just said the bank itself can't confirm the existence of a GJ subpoena to anyone. That would be criminal.

Lay it on us, Addy -- give us that big fat Mueller quote of "Mueller's Word."

 

[OKTexas]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Another assumption you can't possibly prove. You have a link showing the bank is under a gag order?


.

 

[OKTexas]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Why would you think that?

This.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas

There are two situations when banks and their personnel are prohibited from notifying their customers of a grand jury subpoena for their records. The first is when the government obtains a court order delaying notification by following the procedures set at § 3409(a) of the Act. See Delayed Notice at 11, 12 U.S.C. § 3413(i). The second situation is where the records are being subpoenaed to investigate crimes against a financial institution or supervisory agency, 12 U.S.C. § 3420(b) makes it a crime for the bank or its personnel to provide notice to the customer.

* It should also be noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) establishes criminal penalties for situations where an officer of a financial institution notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of a subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas | USAM | Department of Justice

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.


.

 

[OKTexas]

the facts are the facts & the real news is the real news. i even sited the wall street journal which is no different than the NY times when it comes to reporting facts. they part ways when it comes to their OP/EDS. that is what REAL journalism is meow-meow. learn the difference.

Repeating an unconfirmed report is not news. It is not FACT. It is gossip.

Facts are checked and confirmed. Events or reports with a single eyewitness or source are reported with attribution. Who is this report attributed to? What is the name? Duetche Bank has not confirmed. Until they do, it's a rumor.

Yes, Deutsche Bank did get a subpoena from Mueller
Donald Trump’s lawyer denies that US special counsel Robert Mueller subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. We stand by our story – which never said Mr. Trump’s own records were requested.
By Handelsblatt Staff
Published on December 6, 2017 1:42 pm
[...]
According to our information, the subpoena from Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections, is in connection with Mr. Trump’s camp, requiring the bank to provide information on financial transactions and loans. It remains unclear whether the subpoena relates to the US president personally or a family member. Given that qualification, we are standing by our reporting. Other media that have since picked up on Handelsblatt’s original story, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Bloomberg, are sticking by their reporting, too.

Neither Mr. Mueller’s spokesperson nor Deutsche Bank would comment on the report. The bank said in a statement that it cooperates with all investigations and wouldn’t reveal details of individual cases. The fact that Deutsche Bank is keeping quiet about the subpoena is not unusual. Sol Wisenberg, partner of Washington law firm Nelson Mullins, said that Robert Mueller could have explicitly directed the bank to refrain from informing the public – including even its own clients.

It remains unclear whether the subpoena relates to Mr. Trump personally or a family member.

What is clear is that Mr. Mueller’s 40-person investigative team has taken on a broad scope, including examining financial flows in and out of Mr. Trump’s private business interests. Opposition Democrats in the United States have for months called on Deutsche Bank to release financial records relating to Mr. Trump and his family. Adam Schiff, a leading Democratic congressman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, called Tuesday’s news a significant development and suggested the records might expose a connection between Mr. Trump’s businesses and a Deutsche Bank money laundering scandal in Russia.

Such a connection, however, has not been proven, nor did Mr. Schiff provide any such evidence of his own. From our end, Handelsblatt can confirm that Deutsche Bank has been subpoenaed. But exactly what kind of information the bank might have on Mr. Trump or his family, like so many aspects of Mr. Mueller’s ongoing investigation, remains unclear.
[...]
Yes, Deutsche Bank did get a subpoena from Mueller

if it's all the same to you- i would lean towards believing true journalism over the likes of trump's lawyers who seem to be quite incompetent.....the the alternative fact pushers aka fox news, breitbart, gateway pundit & infowars.

It's still not true.

Real journalists name sources and confirm facts. The story has no attribution and has not been verified by anyone. Now they are busy parsing words and covering their asses.

You can choose to believe it. I choose to apply common sense.

Bloomberg had to correct the story. Everyone blew their load too soon again.

Bloomberg Corrects Bombshell Trump Bank Records Story

You've blown yours, too.
Even Trump's friends at the WSJ are sticking by the story:
Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump

It's only Trump's lawyers who are saying it's not true.

You do understand that "related to" is not the same as Trump himself, right?


.

 

[Zander]

Repeating an unconfirmed report is not news. It is not FACT. It is gossip.

Facts are checked and confirmed. Events or reports with a single eyewitness or source are reported with attribution. Who is this report attributed to? What is the name? Duetche Bank has not confirmed. Until they do, it's a rumor.

Yes, Deutsche Bank did get a subpoena from Mueller
Donald Trump’s lawyer denies that US special counsel Robert Mueller subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. We stand by our story – which never said Mr. Trump’s own records were requested.
By Handelsblatt Staff
Published on December 6, 2017 1:42 pm
[...]
According to our information, the subpoena from Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections, is in connection with Mr. Trump’s camp, requiring the bank to provide information on financial transactions and loans. It remains unclear whether the subpoena relates to the US president personally or a family member. Given that qualification, we are standing by our reporting. Other media that have since picked up on Handelsblatt’s original story, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Bloomberg, are sticking by their reporting, too.

Neither Mr. Mueller’s spokesperson nor Deutsche Bank would comment on the report. The bank said in a statement that it cooperates with all investigations and wouldn’t reveal details of individual cases. The fact that Deutsche Bank is keeping quiet about the subpoena is not unusual. Sol Wisenberg, partner of Washington law firm Nelson Mullins, said that Robert Mueller could have explicitly directed the bank to refrain from informing the public – including even its own clients.

It remains unclear whether the subpoena relates to Mr. Trump personally or a family member.

What is clear is that Mr. Mueller’s 40-person investigative team has taken on a broad scope, including examining financial flows in and out of Mr. Trump’s private business interests. Opposition Democrats in the United States have for months called on Deutsche Bank to release financial records relating to Mr. Trump and his family. Adam Schiff, a leading Democratic congressman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, called Tuesday’s news a significant development and suggested the records might expose a connection between Mr. Trump’s businesses and a Deutsche Bank money laundering scandal in Russia.

Such a connection, however, has not been proven, nor did Mr. Schiff provide any such evidence of his own. From our end, Handelsblatt can confirm that Deutsche Bank has been subpoenaed. But exactly what kind of information the bank might have on Mr. Trump or his family, like so many aspects of Mr. Mueller’s ongoing investigation, remains unclear.
[...]
Yes, Deutsche Bank did get a subpoena from Mueller

if it's all the same to you- i would lean towards believing true journalism over the likes of trump's lawyers who seem to be quite incompetent.....the the alternative fact pushers aka fox news, breitbart, gateway pundit & infowars.

It's still not true.

Real journalists name sources and confirm facts. The story has no attribution and has not been verified by anyone. Now they are busy parsing words and covering their asses.

You can choose to believe it. I choose to apply common sense.

Bloomberg had to correct the story. Everyone blew their load too soon again.

Bloomberg Corrects Bombshell Trump Bank Records Story

You've blown yours, too.
Even Trump's friends at the WSJ are sticking by the story:
Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump

It's only Trump's lawyers who are saying it's not true.

You do understand that "related to" is not the same as Trump himself, right?


.

That doesn't matter. LWNJ's just want to FEEL good NOW, even if it turns out to be a lie later....

 

[paperview]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Another assumption you can't possibly prove. You have a link showing the bank is under a gag order?

The law is not "an assumption." The citation has already been placed in this thread, by me not that long ago.

Ketch-up.

 

[paperview]

But just because I'm feeling kind tonight, I'll repost it:

...Not only is the bank not under obligation ----> it's actually a crime for FI's to disclose the existence of a GJ subpoena:

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas

There are two situations when banks and their personnel are prohibited from notifying their customers of a grand jury subpoena for their records. The first is when the government obtains a court order delaying notification by following the procedures set at § 3409(a) of the Act. See Delayed Notice at 11, 12 U.S.C. § 3413(i).

The second situation is where the records are being subpoenaed to investigate crimes against a financial institution or supervisory agency, 12 U.S.C. § 3420(b) makes it a crime for the bank or its personnel to provide notice to the customer.

* It should also be noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) establishes criminal penalties for situations where an officer of a financial institution notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of a subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding.


426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas | USAM | Department of Justice

 

[OKTexas]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Another assumption you can't possibly prove. You have a link showing the bank is under a gag order?

The law is not "an assumption." The citation has already been placed in this thread, by me not that long ago.

Ketch-up.

And you are assuming this supposed subpoena falls under those two exceptions, stop lying. And you don't know if it is a grand jury subpoena.


.

 

[paperview]

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.

Christalmighty.

You're a dense ****, aren't you?

 

[paperview]

It's like talking to 8 year old children, I swear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's like talking to 8 year old children, I swear.

The difference being that most 8 year olds are educable.

 

[OKTexas]

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.

Christalmighty.

You're a dense ****, aren't you?

Don't get pissy with me just because you have no proof of you claims.


.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller issues subpoena to Deutsche Bank in Russia probe

Oh, shit!!

Here we go!

Orange pig-boy vomit PINO is going down, down, down...

Deutsche Bank had been one of Trump’s most reliable lenders. ABC News previously reported the bank helped finance the renovation of the Old Post Office in Washington, the purchase of the Doral golf course in Florida and the construction of an office building in Chicago.

It's obvious now, this about money laundering.

How could OrangeJackwad be so stupid to think he could get away with this...???

Bloomberg Corrects Bombshell Trump Bank Records Story

 

[paperview]

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.

Christalmighty.

You're a dense ****, aren't you?

Don't get pissy with me just because you have no proof of you claims.


.

No proof there are at least two Grand Juries empaneled by Meuller?

That the Mueller's Grand Jury is issuing this (as well as numerous other) subpoenas?

Are you off your crocker?

 

[OKTexas]

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.

Christalmighty.

You're a dense ****, aren't you?

Don't get pissy with me just because you have no proof of you claims.


.

No proof there are at least two Grand Juries empaneled by Meuller?

That the Mueller's Grand Jury is issuing this (as well as numerous other) subpoenas?

Are you off your crocker?

Show me in any link that says the subpoena mentioned in the OP was issued by a grand jury. I'm not interested in your assumptions.


.

 

[paperview]

The reports say Mueller issued the subpoena, not a grand jury.

Christalmighty.

You're a dense ****, aren't you?

Don't get pissy with me just because you have no proof of you claims.


.

No proof there are at least two Grand Juries empaneled by Meuller?

That the Mueller's Grand Jury is issuing this (as well as numerous other) subpoenas?

Are you off your crocker?

Show me in any link that says the subpoena mentioned in the OP was issued by a grand jury. I'm not interested in your assumptions.


.

Oh gawd.

There's a special kind of stupid down there OakyTexas, to be sure.

Think I'll just watch you dance around ballerina-like in your lil pink slippers as you exhibit for the readers how ignorant you are in your twirlies of i don't know nuthin' but how these theengs werk.

More fun this way. I can garan-darn-tee ya though, you'll end up looking pretty foolish.

Twirl, pinkette, twirl.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Why would you think that?

This.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas

There are two situations when banks and their personnel are prohibited from notifying their customers of a grand jury subpoena for their records. The first is when the government obtains a court order delaying notification by following the procedures set at § 3409(a) of the Act. See Delayed Notice at 11, 12 U.S.C. § 3413(i). The second situation is where the records are being subpoenaed to investigate crimes against a financial institution or supervisory agency, 12 U.S.C. § 3420(b) makes it a crime for the bank or its personnel to provide notice to the customer.

* It should also be noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) establishes criminal penalties for situations where an officer of a financial institution notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of a subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas | USAM | Department of Justice

Irrelevant.. this is a special counsel not a grand jury..

 

[Lewdog]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Why would you think that?

This.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas

There are two situations when banks and their personnel are prohibited from notifying their customers of a grand jury subpoena for their records. The first is when the government obtains a court order delaying notification by following the procedures set at § 3409(a) of the Act. See Delayed Notice at 11, 12 U.S.C. § 3413(i). The second situation is where the records are being subpoenaed to investigate crimes against a financial institution or supervisory agency, 12 U.S.C. § 3420(b) makes it a crime for the bank or its personnel to provide notice to the customer.

* It should also be noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) establishes criminal penalties for situations where an officer of a financial institution notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of a subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas | USAM | Department of Justice

Irrelevant.. this is a special counsel not a grand jury..

The Special Counsel can't get a subpoena without a grand jury...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Deutsche Bank has not confirmed and there is no attribution. That is not journalism, it is gossip.

DB can't confirm, numbskull.

It would be a crime for them to do so.

And neither can you... You cant confirm your GOSSIP.. Your UNNAMED SOURCE has been outed as a liar.. Its all fantasy all the time with you libtards..

 

[Billy_Bob]

When the bank confirms they are sending Mueller Trumps records, get back to me. It's on you to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

It would be a crime for the bank to confirm that.

Why would you think that?

This.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas

There are two situations when banks and their personnel are prohibited from notifying their customers of a grand jury subpoena for their records. The first is when the government obtains a court order delaying notification by following the procedures set at § 3409(a) of the Act. See Delayed Notice at 11, 12 U.S.C. § 3413(i). The second situation is where the records are being subpoenaed to investigate crimes against a financial institution or supervisory agency, 12 U.S.C. § 3420(b) makes it a crime for the bank or its personnel to provide notice to the customer.

* It should also be noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) establishes criminal penalties for situations where an officer of a financial institution notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of a subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

426. Prohibiting Banks from Notifying Customers of Grand Jury Subpoenas | USAM | Department of Justice

Irrelevant.. this is a special counsel not a grand jury..

The Special Counsel can't get a subpoena without a grand jury...

Wrong..

The special Counsel has been granted subpoena powers. You guys need to get some facts right..