• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jay Sekulow Hits Back Over Subpoena of Trump Bank Records – ‘False’

chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fake news. Sekulow is Trumps attorney, and Deutsche Bank also backs him up.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jay-sekulow-hits-back-over-subpoena-of-trump-bank-records-false/

The Trump administration’s legal team is crying foul over reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank as part of his investigation into alleged Russian election meddling.

On Tuesday morning, Bloomberg News reported that the special counselor is hunting for information on Deutsche Bank and its relationship with the president and his family, citing an unnamed source.

Trump reportedly owes the German lender $300 million.

However, Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team, argued that the report is baseless.

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the special counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false,” Sekulow said in a statement.
Click to expand...

The source (from Bloomberg): "the person familiar with the matter" - anonymous, unsourced, typical headline.
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
Fake news. Sekulow is Trumps attorney, and Deutsche Bank also backs him up.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jay-sekulow-hits-back-over-subpoena-of-trump-bank-records-false/



The source (from Bloomberg): "the person familiar with the matter" - anonymous, unsourced, typical headline.
Click to expand...

FAKES NUUUS!!!! At this point I trust a single person familiar with the matter over anybody in this administration. They are lying POS.
Oh this is from the guy's lawyer, who was probably paid to say this.
 
haymarket said:
Where is the supposed statement from the bank which backs him up?
Click to expand...

The bank is under no obligation to issue a statement confirming that nothing has happened. I think a phone call from the WH to the bank which confirms that no federal subpoena has been received is sufficient. Just because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean, well, anything at all. I've generally noticed that when nothing happens, I don't receive phone calls or statements to the effect of "nothing has happened". Do you?
 
humbolt said:
The bank is under no obligation to issue a statement confirming that nothing has happened. I think a phone call from the WH to the bank which confirms that no federal subpoena has been received is sufficient. Just because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean, well, anything at all. I've generally noticed that when nothing happens, I don't receive phone calls or statements to the effect of "nothing has happened". Do you?
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't under an obligation. He only asked for the statement because Chuckie said there was one. Right now we have a claim that the bank agrees coming from the white house lawyer, but no actual statement from the bank as Chuckie seemed to indicate.
 
ABC and BBC both say a subpoena was issued. The Western Journal says it wasn't.

Stay tuned. I'm sure we'll find out who is right sooner or later.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Of course they aren't under an obligation. He only asked for the statement because Chuckie said there was one. Right now we have a claim that the bank agrees coming from the white house lawyer, but no actual statement from the bank as Chuckie seemed to indicate.
Click to expand...

The bank isn't obligated to issue a public statement. They are obligated to inform customers of potential record transfers to third parties.
 
chuckiechan said:
Fake news. Sekulow is Trumps attorney, and Deutsche Bank also backs him up.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jay-sekulow-hits-back-over-subpoena-of-trump-bank-records-false/



The source (from Bloomberg): "the person familiar with the matter" - anonymous, unsourced, typical headline.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what "Western Journal" is, but can you cite the part of the article that supports Sekulow's claim that the subpoena is false?

We've all been down this road many, many times, folks. The subpoena happened. Trump supporters' next position will be "Yes, Sekulow lied, but the Clintons have lied many times too."
 
humbolt said:
The bank isn't obligated to issue a public statement. They are obligated to inform customers of potential record transfers to third parties.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating this when no one is arguing that they are?
 
Here's my question for Trump supporters.

Don't you WANT for Trumps Deutsche bank records to be looked over? I mean, if Trump isn't hiding anything at all, and this really is just "FAKENEEEWS!" then he'll come out clean, right? Liberals will look like idiots, he'll be proven to have been honest with the public when he stated "no loans with Russia", and Trump will surely be reelected in 2020 by the voters.

If it turns out he's massively in debt to Russian interests however...

Don't you want to find out the truth, and know for sure?
 
humbolt said:
Maybe it's because some people here keep asking for bank confirmation. That could be it.
Click to expand...

Because someone mentioned that the bank had made a confirmation. None of them were claiming that the bank was forced to. They were asking for proof of a claim. I'm not sure why that seems to raise your hackles enough to keep posting the same completely extraneous point.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Because someone mentioned that the bank had made a confirmation. None of them were claiming that the bank was forced to. They were asking for proof of a claim. I'm not sure why that seems to raise your hackles enough to keep posting the same completely extraneous point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you, or others, keep questioning what is obvious to anybody with any banking experience. DB is required to notify account holders of any record sharing with third parties, including Mueller. So people requesting proof or confirmation are likely asking with the knowledge in advance that such information will not be forthcoming. In short, it's a dishonest question. You're comfortable with that?
 
humbolt said:
The bank is under no obligation to issue a statement confirming that nothing has happened. I think a phone call from the WH to the bank which confirms that no federal subpoena has been received is sufficient. Just because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean, well, anything at all. I've generally noticed that when nothing happens, I don't receive phone calls or statements to the effect of "nothing has happened". Do you?
Click to expand...

It could be when the Bank said that they comply with legal requirements they meant that if there was a subpoena they would have notified the account holder.
 
MovingPictures said:
Here's my question for Trump supporters.

Don't you WANT for Trumps Deutsche bank records to be looked over? I mean, if Trump isn't hiding anything at all, and this really is just "FAKENEEEWS!" then he'll come out clean, right? Liberals will look like idiots, he'll be proven to have been honest with the public when he stated "no loans with Russia", and Trump will surely be reelected in 2020 by the voters.

If it turns out he's massively in debt to Russian interests however...

Don't you want to find out the truth, and know for sure?
Click to expand...

Do you want your bank records looked over just to be sure no crime has been committed?
 
bubbabgone said:
It could be when the Bank said that they comply with legal requirements they meant that if there was a subpoena they would have notified the account holder.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I get out of it.
 
humbolt said:
The bank is under no obligation to issue a statement confirming that nothing has happened. I think a phone call from the WH to the bank which confirms that no federal subpoena has been received is sufficient. Just because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean, well, anything at all. I've generally noticed that when nothing happens, I don't receive phone calls or statements to the effect of "nothing has happened". Do you?
Click to expand...

here is what the OP claimed

Quote Originally Posted by chuckiechan View Post
Fake news. Sekulow is Trumps attorney, and Deutsche Bank also backs him up.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in that article from the bank backing the lawyer up.
 
Lutherf said:
Do you want your bank records looked over just to be sure no crime has been committed?
Click to expand...

If I was on the hot seat as perpetually as Trump? Heck yes! I'd want to make it stop. Why doesn't he? I mean, I guess he could be a raving libertarian nut job, willing to take tons of heat for the principle of the thing, but I've never seen any evidence of that before. And given the time he must spend fighting off scandal, you would think that if he had nothing to hide, and was committed to the job of President, he'd want to get this behind him ASAP so he can get to work.

That he's not seems to indicate that either he's got something to hide, or he's happy for the scandal because it covers up the fact that he's not up to the actual job. Either way, full disclosure never has and never will look good on this guy. Surprised you feel differently...
 
Lutherf said:
Do you want your bank records looked over just to be sure no crime has been committed?
Click to expand...

He's the president of the USA, and he's been nothing but secretive about his financing, which begs the question of what he's hiding from us.

If he has no loans with Russian interests/institutions then he should he prove it.
 
OlNate said:
If I was on the hot seat as perpetually as Trump? Heck yes! I'd want to make it stop. Why doesn't he? I mean, I guess he could be a raving libertarian nut job, willing to take tons of heat for the principle of the thing, but I've never seen any evidence of that before. And given the time he must spend fighting off scandal, you would think that if he had nothing to hide, and was committed to the job of President, he'd want to get this behind him ASAP so he can get to work.

That he's not seems to indicate that either he's got something to hide, or he's happy for the scandal because it covers up the fact that he's not up to the actual job. Either way, full disclosure never has and never will look good on this guy. Surprised you feel differently...
Click to expand...
It's amazing that when it's a president that they don't like such as Clinton, they want full-disclosure of everything, but when it's a president they support they're willing to let them hide the same kind of information.

If the Trump camp wants this behind them, just cooperate already. Tell the truth the first time, hand off the documents requested, don't lie, and shut-up about how you're victims. If you're innocent and have no wrong doing to hide, then let the investigation runs it's course.

The only people that lie at every turn, act out in constant hysterics, and tell investigators what they can and can't look into, are people that have massive wrongdoing to hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom