Sign in to follow this  

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

This isn't the truth?

If special counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation makes one thing clear, it’s that many of the news reports that President Donald Trump branded as “fake news“ were, in fact, very real news indeed.

While Mr Mueller’s report didn’t establish a criminal conspiracy and was “unable” to conclude that obstruction of justice occurred – contrary to hours of speculation among cable-news pundits during Mr Mueller’s long investigation – it also largely validated news accounts that Trump dismissed or disparaged.

Instead, at least in the Mueller team’s analysis, the fake news seems to have flowed not from the media but from the other direction.

His report, released Thursday, cites multiple instances in which Trump and White House aides misled or lied to journalists or in public statements as the investigation was unfolding.

On the day of Mr Mueller’s appointment, in May 2017, for example, White House aides said Trump reacted calmly to the news.

In fact, according to Mr Mueller’s report, Trump’s first reaction was anything but calm.

According to notes taken by an aide, Trump responded by saying: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f***ed ... This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters repeatedly in May 2017 that she personally had heard from “countless members of the FBI” that they were “grateful and thankful” to Trump for firing FBI director James Comey.

That never happened, Mr Mueller said. He wrote that Ms Sanders later acknowledged to investigators that her comments were “not founded on anything”.

Trump also dictated a press statement saying that he had fired Mr Comey based on the recommendations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

But Mr Mueller found that Trump had already decided to fire James Comey before Gen Rosenstein had weighed in.

Mr Trump backed down and later publicly acknowledged he intended to fire Mr Comey regardless of Gen Rosenstein’s memo after unnamed Justice Department officials “made clear to him” that they would “resist” the bogus justification, Mr Mueller said.

Incoming White House aides also lied about press accounts they knew were accurate.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn directed an aide, KT McFarland, to call Washington Post columnist David Ignatius during the presidential transition in January 2017 and deny Mr Ignatius’ reporting about Mr Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Ms McFarland “knew she was providing false information” when she called Mr Ignatius to dispute his surmise that Mr Flynn had discussed removing sanctions on Russia with Sergey Kislyak. (Prompted by Ms McFarland’s call, The Post updated the column to note that a “Trump official” denied that Mr Flynn discussed sanctions.)

Mr Trump and his aides also knocked down an accurate New York Times story in May 2017 reporting that the president had asked Mr Comey for loyalty during a private dinner several months before his firing.

Mr Trump even lied about who invited whom to dinner:

He told NBC News anchor Lester Holt in an interview that month Mr Comey had asked for it because “he wanted to stay on”. 

Mr Mueller found evidence that the president extended the invitation to Mr Comey on 27 January.

On the eve of Mr Comey’s testimony to Congress that May, Mr Trump sought to raise questions about his credibility, when – as Mr Mueller found – it was Trump’s credibility that was questionable.

At the time, Trump tweeted, “James Comey better hope there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversation before he starts leaking to the press!”

Mr Comey’s contemporaneous accounts of his meeting with Mr Trump and corroboration from his FBI colleagues also show that another New York Times story, branded as “fake news” by the president, was true.

The Times reported that Trump had asked Mr Comey to end the investigation of Mr Flynn; Mr Mueller found “substantial evidence” that this was true, despite Mr Trump publicly saying otherwise.

Mr Trump also tried to persuade then-White House Counsel Donald McGahn to deny stories in The Washington Post and the Times in early 2018 that Trump had asked Mr McGahn to fire Mr Mueller about seven months earlier.

Mr McGahn refused repeatedly to undercut the stories because he knew they were “accurate in reporting on the President’s effort to have the Special Counsel removed”.

Mr Mueller noted that Trump “challenged” his lawyer for taking notes of their conversation.

“Why do you take notes?” he asked Mr McGahn, according to the report. “Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.”

Mr McGahn said he kept notes because he is a “real lawyer” and to establish a record.

Mr Trump replied, “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.’’

Mr Cohn, who was chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, during Mr McCarthy’s communist-hunting hearings in the 1950s, was disbarred by a New York court in 1986 because of “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation”.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYT fake news ??  No WAYYYYYY  !

NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual

The salacious and uncorroborated “dossier” compiled by ex-British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used by the media to justify its endless attacks on President Donald Trump and accuse him of treason.


The dossier was never anything more than opposition research paid for by Fusion GPS – and not even good opposition research at that. Steele reported rumors and gossip, including some Internet comments, to bolster his report.

What wasn’t corroborated was downright debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, including the allegations that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians.

Now, after two years of using the dossier to perpetuate the “collusion” narrative, the New York Times has finally acknowledged what those of us not parroting the collusion delusion have known for years – the dossier was garbage.

“[T]he release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out,” the Times reported.

The dossier will now be the subject of at least two inquiries – one from congressional Republicans and one from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, who is looking into whether the FBI improperly relied on the propaganda document to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page.

(Side note: The Times is one of the outlets that denounced Attorney General William Barr for saying the FBI was “spying” on the Trump campaign, yet when talking about the warrant for Page, the newspaper uses the term “eavesdrop.” Spying, eavesdropping, surveilling, what’s the difference?)

The FBI, according to the Times, appears to have been suspicious of the dossier since early 2017. That, however, was right around the time media outlets reported on the existence of the dossier – and Buzzfeed published the unverified document in a breach of journalistic ethics – and so the fact that the FBI doubted the dossier’s credibility was never part of the story.

Instead, media outlets like the Times spent years talking to “sources” – some of whom were likely Fusion GPS operatives – claiming Mueller had evidence supporting claims in the dossier.

Those who have been beating the drum about the false “collusion” narrative took to Twitter to criticize the Times’ Johnny-come-lately routine.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway jokingly paraphrased the Times’ main point from their article.

“NYT: ‘Ha ha, funny story, you'll never believe it. That dossier we spent years defending as legitimate and a worthy basis for FISA wiretaps on citizens is so unfounded it might actually be Russian disinformation, just like the collusion skeptics warned,’" she tweeted.

Journalist Lee Smith wrote: “Note from @nytimes to readers: we won a Pulitzer for our Trump-Russia collusion reporting but now we think the document that the whole story based on, the Steele dossier, might be problematic.”

Journalist Patrick Poole tweeted: “This is very telling. It was clear in Jan 2017 that this was likely part Russian disinformation since **the very first page** of Steele’s dossier reveals his Source B is “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” 2+ years later they’re just catching up.”



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes.

The armchair academics

Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.

A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.”Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.

Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.

Then there are the organizations with declared agendas. The Media Research Center and Media Matters for America scour the news for evidence of left-wing and right-wing bias, respectively. The MRC’s vice president for research and publications, Brent Baker, doesn’t see a need to agree a suite of universal bias measures, because he’s confident in the organization’s existing quantitative methodology.

The reality is, we’ve been finding, I think very effectively for 30 years now, [that] the media are tilted to the left,” Baker says.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is most important that is being glossed over is that it isn't about left or right bias.  It is about the line I highlighted in my post.

"publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. "

It is the willful spreading of untruths to forward the bias.

If it was reporting truly on the facts, then maybe it would be admissible.

However, as seen through the U.S. election, and as highlighted in another thread, it is far too easy to manipulate news to achieve that bias.  And shouting it out over and over again still doesn't make it fact, or right.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, deicer said:

publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. "

And the EXACT same phrase can be attributed to Leftist leaning sources ad nauseam. CNN, NYT, MSNBC, CBC, Toronto Star etc etc So what’s your point?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

let it play out.  What could go wrong?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference couldn’t be more stark..


Leadership under Trudeau

court in China has sentenced a Canadian citizen to death for producing and trafficking methamphetamine. Fan Wei is the second Canadian to be sentenced to death this year. 


China has stopped all canola imports from Canada, industry group says




Compared to...

Leadership under Trump


A US-China trade deal is ‘possible’ by next Friday, sources say

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

what does a private citizen being arrested and convicted in China of drug trafficking have to do with Trudeau leadership?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boestar said:

what does a private citizen being arrested and convicted in China of drug trafficking have to do with Trudeau leadership?

You don’t think the arrest of that Chinese Huawei exec affected China / Canadian relations? Why would the Chinese simply not deport the person back to Canada.?  Why make an example on the world stage? This is all about China making a point...Screw with Chinese citizens, we will return the treatment 10 fold. Notice you don’t see China threatening to hang Americans? Trudeau has totally F***ed relations with China on numerous fronts.

Remember the McCallum affair?  >>> Canada is a frightened bird >>>

First Canola, now peas and soybeans.

Rome is burning while Trudeau virtue signals....and Canadians are paying the price for his stupidity. Tax $$$$ will pay for this >>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I think the guy should hang but that's just my opinion regardless of the political motivation.  They guy broke the law in a foreign land and when in a foreign land we are governed by THEIR laws and values not Canadian ones.  He willfully and knowingly committed the crime and if this is the punishment then so be it.

These people do these things knowing that they will be extradited home and receive a lighter sentence.  frankly I hope all countries follow suit.  Maybe it will actually become a deterrent


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another push back from China.....this all lies entirely at the feet of Trudeau and his policies.


Now pigs: China blocks imports from two Canadian pork producers amid diplomatic row

Canada is the world's third-largest pork exporter

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, boestar said:

These people do these things knowing that they will be extradited home and receive a lighter sentence.  frankly I hope all countries follow suit.  Maybe it will actually become a deterrent

Unless of course your name is Omar Khadr . A proven convicted terrorist...then Trudeau panders to you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I thought this had to be a satire piece, alas, no....  Highlights for emphasis are mine.

Trump, Putin discussed Mueller report and agreed no collusion, White House says

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke Friday and both agreed "there was no collusion" between Moscow and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Sanders said that the two briefly discussed special counsel Robert Mueller's report "essentially in the context of that it's over and there was no collusion." She added that she was "pretty sure both leaders were very well aware of (the Mueller report's finding) long before this call took place" because it was "something we've said for the better part of two and a half years."

When asked if they also discussed election meddling by Russia that Mueller detailed in his report, she said that the administration is committed to securing American elections and blasted the Obama administration for not taking action in 2016.

"This administration, unlike the previous one, takes election meddling seriously," she said.

Trump later confirmed the call in a Friday tweet in which called the accusation of collusion the "Russian Hoax."

"Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia. As I have always said, long before the Witch Hunt started, getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing," he tweeted. "We discussed Trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, Nuclear Arms Control and even the 'Russian Hoax.' Very productive talk!"

Since Mueller's findings were released by Attorney General William Barr in March and the full report was released last month, Trump has continued to claim vindication. Mueller's report, which lays out Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election, notes "that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." However, Mueller said in the report that he did not find a provable criminal conspiracy.

During Mueller’s probe, he indicted twenty-five Russian nationals and three Russian companies for hacking and a disinformation campaign targeting Americans on social media.

Trump previously came under fire from Republicans and Democrats for suggesting that Russia was not the culprit during a Helsinki summit with Putin last year, despite American intelligence agencies concluding that the country interfered in the election. He later walked back his comments.

Sanders also answered a question about whether White House counsel Don McGahn would testify before Congress as Democrats ramp up their oversight investigations into the administration. McGahn was a key witness in one of the 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump that Mueller outlined in the report.

She also said that they discussed the crisis in Venezuela and the administration's need for a peaceful transition of power in the country and delivering aid to the country. Trump and Putin also talked about the need for Russia to put pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

CORRECTION (May 3,2019, 1:51 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article incorrectly included one topic that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Presidents Trump and Putin discussed on Friday. They did not discuss the possibility of former White House counsel Don McGahn appearing before Congress. Sanders was answering a question from reporters about whether McGahn would testify before Congress.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


They must be happy because this is 'what they voted for'! 

Now it's coming to Ontario, Alberta, etc.......

The US budget deficit hit $234 billion in the month of February, up 8.7% compared to the same month last year.

The February budget deficit was also the highest one-month deficit on record, eclipsing the previous record set in 2012.

The deficit is growing as the GOP tax law slows revenue intake and the bipartisan budget deal drives up spending.

The US posted a record budget deficit in the month of February, according to a new report form the Treasury Department.

The budget deficit for February came in at $234 billion, according to the Treasury, higher than the previous monthly record of $231.7 billion set in 2012. The deficit was also 8.7% higher than the $215.2 billion deficit posted in February 2018.

The budget deficit measures the shortfall of government revenues compared to what the government spends. Recent legislative changes have driven the deficit up to its highest levels since the financial crisis.

The deficit for the first five months of the government's 2019 fiscal year, which runs from October 2018 through October 2019, hit $544.2 billion — up 40% from the first five months of fiscal year 2018.

The growing deficit has been fueled by two big factors. First, President Donald Trump's and the GOP's tax reform law — named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) — has caused revenues to slide. According to the Treasury, revenue for the first five months of fiscal year 2019 is down a little less than 1% compared to the same period the year before.

Second, spending is soaring due to the bipartisan budget compromise from early 2018 and long-term programs. Spending for the start of fiscal year 2019 is up 9% compared to the same time period last fiscal year.

The news comes as concerns about the debt have piled up in recent months. The budget deficit for the full 2018 fiscal year hit $779 billion, the highest since 2012. The US also issued just over $1.3 trillion in new debt during the 2018 calendar year, the most for any calendar year since 2010.

Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office, it won't get any better with the deficit expected to top $1 trillion by fiscal year 2022. Even the president's own budget estimated that the deficit will top $1 trillion next fiscal year.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mom always said the truth will come out in the end.  The onion keeps getting peeled....

Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.

The nature of the transactions was not clear. At least some of them involved money flowing back and forth with overseas entities or individuals, which bank employees considered suspicious.

Real estate developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner sometimes do large, all-cash deals, including with people outside the United States, any of which can prompt anti-money laundering reviews. The red flags raised by employees do not necessarily mean the transactions were improper. Banks sometimes opt not to file suspicious activity reports if they conclude their employees’ concerns are unwarranted.

But former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws. The employees — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their ability to work in the industry — said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients.

“You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens,” said Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist who reviewed some of the transactions. “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”

Ms. McFadden said she was terminated last year after she raised concerns about the bank’s practices. Since then, she has filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators about the bank’s anti-money-laundering enforcement.

Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the company had intensified its efforts to combat financial crime. An effective anti-money laundering program, she said, “requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently.”

“At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious,” she added. “Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false.”

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the Trump family’s many business interests, said: “We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank.” She said the Trump Organization currently has “no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank.” She did not respond when asked if other Trump entities had accounts.

Karen Zabarsky, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said: “Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false. The New York Times continues to create dots that just don’t connect.”

Deutsche Bank’s decision not to report the transactions is the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s long, complicated relationship with the German bank — the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with the real estate developer.

Congressional and state authorities are investigating that relationship and have demanded the bank’s records related to the president, his family and their companies. Subpoenas from two House committees seek, among other things, documents related to any suspicious activities detected in Mr. Trump’s personal and business bank accounts since 2010, according to a copy of a subpoena included in a federal court filing.

Mr. Trump and his family sued Deutsche Bank in April, seeking to block it from complying with the congressional subpoenas. The president’s lawyers described the subpoenas as politically motivated.

Suspicious activity reports are at the heart of the federal government’s efforts to identify criminal activity like money laundering and sanctions violations. But government regulations give banks leeway in selecting which transactions to report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Lenders typically use a layered approach to detect improper activity. The first step is filtering thousands of transactions using computer programs, which send the ones considered potentially suspicious to midlevel employees for a detailed review. Those employees can decide whether to draft a suspicious activity report, but a final ruling on whether to submit it to the Treasury Department is often made by more senior managers.

In the summer of 2016, Deutsche Bank’s software flagged a series of transactions involving the real estate company of Mr. Kushner, now a senior White House adviser.

Ms. McFadden, a longtime anti-money laundering specialist in Deutsche Bank’s Jacksonville office, said she had reviewed the transactions and found that money had moved from Kushner Companies to Russian individuals. She concluded that the transactions should be reported to the government — in part because federal regulators had ordered Deutsche Bank, which had been caught laundering billions of dollars for Russians, to toughen its scrutiny of potentially illegal transactions.

Ms. McFadden drafted a suspicious activity report and compiled a small bundle of documents to back up her decision.

Typically, such a report would be reviewed by a team of anti-money laundering experts who are independent of the business line in which the transactions originated — in this case, the private-banking division — according to Ms. McFadden and two former Deutsche Bank managers.

That did not happen with this report. It went to managers in New York who were part of the private bank, which caters to the ultrawealthy. They felt Ms. McFadden’s concerns were unfounded and opted not to submit the report to the government, the employees said.

Ms. McFadden and some of her colleagues said they believed the report had been killed to maintain the private-banking division’s strong relationship with Mr. Kushner.

After Mr. Trump became president, transactions involving him and his companies were reviewed by an anti-financial crime team at the bank called the Special Investigations Unit. That team, based in Jacksonville, produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled, according to three former Deutsche Bank employees who saw the reports in an internal computer system.

Some of those reports involved Mr. Trump’s limited liability companies. At least one was related to transactions involving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, two employees said.

Deutsche Bank ultimately chose not to file those suspicious activity reports with the Treasury Department, either, according to three former employees. They said it was unusual for the bank to reject a series of reports involving the same high-profile client.

Mr. Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank spans two decades. During a period when most Wall Street banks had stopped doing business with him after his repeated defaults, Deutsche Bank lent Mr. Trump and his companies a total of more than $2.5 billion. Projects financed through the private-banking division include Mr. Trump’s Doral golf resort near Miami and his transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into a luxury hotel.

When he became president, he owed Deutsche Bank well over $300 million. That made the German institution Mr. Trump’s biggest creditor — and put the bank in a bind.

Senior executives worried that if they took a tough stance with Mr. Trump’s accounts — for example, by demanding payment of a delinquent loan — they could provoke the president’s wrath. On the other hand, if they didn’t do anything, the bank could be perceived as cutting a lucrative break for Mr. Trump, whose administration wields regulatory and law enforcement power over the bank.

In the past few years, United States and European authorities have punished Deutsche Bank for helping clients, including wealthy Russians, launder funds and for moving money into countries like Iran in violation of American sanctions. The bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and is operating under a Federal Reserve order that requires it to do more to stop illicit activities.

On two palm-tree-lined campuses in Jacksonville, Deutsche Bank has thousands of employees who vet customers and transactions. Six current and former bank employees there said the operations were deeply troubled.

Anti-money laundering workers were pressured to quickly sift through transactions to assess whether they were suspicious, the employees said. As a result, they often erred on the side of not flagging transactions.

Two former employees said that they had raised concerns about transactions involving companies linked to prominent Russians, but that managers had told them not to file suspicious activity reports. The employees were under the impression that the bank did not want to upset important clients.

Several employees said they had complained about the bank’s anti-money laundering processes to Joshua Blazer, the head of Deutsche Bank’s financial crimes investigations division in Jacksonville, and had then been criticized for having a negative attitude. One employee said she resigned last summer over concerns about the bank’s ethics.

Mr. Blazer, hired by Deutsche Bank in 2017 to strengthen the bank’s financial crime-fighting apparatus, declined to comment.

Ms. McFadden’s job at Deutsche Bank was to inspect clients and transactions in the company’s private-banking division — the unit that lent money to Mr. Trump. She joined the bank in 2008, after working for Bank of America, also in Jacksonville.

Ms. McFadden had left Bank of America in 2005, and later sued for racial discrimination and wrongful termination. According to court records, her lawsuit was settled on confidential terms the same year she joined Deutsche Bank, where she went on to win multiple performance awards.

Around the time she flagged the Kushner Companies’ transactions, Ms. McFadden said, she also complained about how the bank was scrutinizing the accounts of high-profile customers, such as those in public office. Those customers — known as politically exposed persons — are regarded as at heightened risk of being involved in corruption. As a result, their accounts are subject to extra vetting.

Ms. McFadden said she had told her superiors that dozens of politically exposed clients of the private-banking division, including Mr. Trump and members of his family, were not receiving that added attention. Her superiors told her to stop raising questions, according to Ms. McFadden and the two former managers.

After taking her complaint to the human resources department, Ms. McFadden was transferred to another division. She was terminated in April 2018. The bank told her that she was not processing enough transactions.

Ms. McFadden disputed that. She said her superiors had reduced the number of transactions she was assigned to review after she voiced her concerns. She and the two former managers said they perceived her termination as an act of retaliation.

“They attempted to try to silence me,” she said. “I’m at peace because I know that I did the right thing.”


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

  The onion keeps getting peeled....

Kinda like 'the noose is tightening' - btw, what the hell happened there?
So, 7 months after their gain of the majority of the house - a gun control bill? Nope; an infrastructure bill? Nope; a health care bill? Nope; an immigration bill? Nope; lotsa energy and hot air about the snooze-o-rama that would be impeachment? You betcha. Keep it up guys, girls and conflicted - 4 more years!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this