Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Michael Cohen/Trump SDNY Investigation Thread


No Excuses

Recommended Posts

The Ronan Farrow/NYer scoop is utterly fascinating. Only two conclusions:

 

1. The two missing SAR's are so explosive in their nature, that FINCEN went through an unprecedented process of taking them out of the searchable database.

 

2. Someone tampered with evidence in a high profile investigation into the President's personal attorney.

 

#1 is the likely choice since FINCEN and law enforcement could always request the SAR from the bank again.

 

I swear to god, if the parties were reversed, the right wing news circuit would be in a perpetual state of orgasming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

TWA...since the Stormy investigation is a state investigation, I'm assuming since persons can't be pardoned. If they go to Mueller, Trump may pardon. Just thinking off the top of my head. 

 

I thought the main Stormy issue centered on federal campaign finance matters?

(aside from the non-disclosure issue)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspect y'all are falling down a classic twa rabbit hole. 

 

"Could you explain to me why this untrue, suspicious-sounding meme that the 

right wing media wants to pretend is true, is true?"  

 

To start with, we have no idea if Mueller had this information, or how either investigation got it. No "whistleblower" is needed or implied, about either team getting it. 

 

The information was leaked, not to "Stormy Daniels lawyer", but to multiple media outlets, by someone identified only as "a law enforcement source", supposedly because it appeared that the information was being censored from the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, twa said:

Stormy's lawyer got bank records from the media?

This article and the New Yorker one seem to be vague about that, perhaps the source leaked to both Avenatti and the media, perhaps a media source passed it on to him. Once the media had it it was going public regardless. The Vox article alludes to inquiries by Mueller that suggest he was onto Cohen's shady dealing quite a while ago. Mueller doesn't leak, unlike the WH, but his employees probably respect him.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17363242/michael-cohen-trump-avenatti-leaks-financial-records

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, twa said:

Could someone get me up to speed on why a whistleblower would leak them to Stormy's attorney rather than Mueller ect?

 

interesting times :)

 

Mueller already has them most likely. He’s been looking into Cohen since last year reportedly. 

 

I think the fact that the two more detailed ones aren’t in a searchable database is pretty clear indiciatiom that they are being used in a highly classified criminal investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Mueller already has them most likely. He’s been looking into Cohen since last year reportedly. 

 

I think the fact that the two more detailed ones aren’t in a searchable database is pretty clear indiciatiom that they are being used in a highly classified criminal investigation. 

 

So the whistleblower wasn't satisfied with just Mueller having them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

So the whistleblower wasn't satisfied with just Mueller having them?

 

So your first attempt to divert the conversation from the bribes to the person who revealed them didn’t work, and you’re trying a different one?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

So your first attempt to divert the conversation from the bribes to the person who revealed them didn’t work, and you’re trying a different one?  

 

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

Suspect y'all are falling down a classic twa rabbit hole. 

 

 

:bye:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So your first attempt to divert the conversation from the bribes to the person who revealed them didn’t work, and you’re trying a different one?  

 

If you got more on bribes I'd like to see it.

Surely we are capable of discussing more than one aspect at a time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So your first attempt to divert the conversation from the bribes to the person who revealed them didn’t work, and you’re trying a different one?  

For once, I didn't feed it...but you did. 

I know, it's an endless trap.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...