Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All kinds of evidence points to financial crimes (just look at the law suits referred to other courts from the Mueller investigation), so yes, the should be investigated.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
You do understand that one simply needs "probable cause" to obtain evidence. If "proof" that a person committed a crime were needed before obtaining evidence, why would you even need the evidence at that point?
Actually, the House does not even need "probable cause". The request must merely be "pertinent" to its oversight and legislative powers.
People cheering on this behavior by the Democrats need to step back and actually think what's taking place.
Legislators in Congress are seizing bank records... NOT because a crime was committed... but to search for a crime with which to attempt to impeach Trump.
If they do it to him, they will do it to anyone.
I have no problem people who oppose Trump politically or personally or whatever, but this goes over the line.
Trump was subjected to a two year investigation and was cleared. Even Mueller didn't go this far.
If you are OK with this behavior... it will come back to bite you. Bank on it.
A key congressional committee has already gained access to President Donald Trump’s dealings with two major financial institutions, two sources familiar with the House probe tell NBC News, as a court ruling Wednesday promised to open the door for even more records to be handed over.
Wells Fargo and TD Bank are the two of nine institutions that have so far complied with subpoenas issued by the House Financial Services Committee demanding information about their dealings with the Trump Organization, according to the sources. The disclosures by these two banks haven’t been previously reported. Both TD Bank and Wells Fargo declined to comment for this story.
...
The subpoenas, details of which have not been released to the public, are predicated on the notion that Congress has access to the information under the Bank Secrecy Act, which allows Congress access to financial information to search for money laundering, according to a person who has seen them.
Has Trump been indicted of money laundering? Is there anything in official with regards to this?
Or is Congress or anyone else in authority able to seize bank records because they feel like it?
“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern,” Waters said in April when she issued the subpoenas. “The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the President and his associates, as thoroughly as possible pursuant to its oversight authority, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead us.”
In other words, they have nothing, and this is a fishing expedition. They are "exploring these matters". It "may involve the President". They will follow the facts wherever it leads them. They are totally searching for a crime at this point.
Wait until Trump gets pelosi's, fiensteins, etc. being they are multimillionaires and family owners of very large businesses.
"What is good for the goose, is good for the gander"
They need to go through the police and get a warrant then. So you would accept me going to the police and telling them you’re doing something illegal and they just walk into your house without a warrant and start taking stuff? You Totalitarians would’ve loved the Soviet Union.
Police don't issue warrants, the courts do. And a Federal Court Judge just confirmed that Congress should be given the records.
And if you tell the police that something illegal is going on, they will certainly obtain a warrant from a judge to investigate, citing you as the witness with probable cause
You do understand that one simply needs "probable cause" to obtain evidence. If "proof" that a person committed a crime were needed before obtaining evidence, why would you even need the evidence at that point?
I am just wondering that after a 2 year investigation where he was never the main subject of criminal activity with regards to collusion with Russia (technically not a crime), and there was no indication of wrongdoing on his part - on what basis is this continuing?
Someone mentioned money laundering... I am asking for a link to real info about it.
if the fascist liberals actually wanted to help this country, then they would be talking to him about infrastructure, instead all they talk about is impeachment and finding a crime to fit, when there is none
He's the one who left the meeting. He's the one not talking.
I am just wondering that after a 2 year investigation where he was never the main subject of criminal activity with regards to collusion with Russia (technically not a crime), and there was no indication of wrongdoing on his part - on what basis is this continuing?
Someone mentioned money laundering... I am asking for a link to real info about it.
There was a lot of evidence of wrong doing, thus, the multiple investigations referred to other courts.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Wait until Trump gets pelosi's, fiensteins, etc. being they are multimillionaires and family owners of very large businesses.
"What is good for the goose, is good for the gander"
And how's he going to do that? It's not that Trump's a millionaire or billionaire or whatever he claims he is. They want to see if there is anything illegal about his financial dealings. But you knew that.
I am just wondering that after a 2 year investigation where he was never the main subject of criminal activity with regards to collusion with Russia (technically not a crime), and there was no indication of wrongdoing on his part - on what basis is this continuing?
Someone mentioned money laundering... I am asking for a link to real info about it.
People testified under oath that he instructed them to commit crimes
Did you miss that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
