Being a participant in "money laundering" is also illegal - much of Trump's real estate is being purchased through shell and numbered companies allowing the name of the real buyer to remain anonymous!
They keep finding more...
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
Being a participant in "money laundering" is also illegal - much of Trump's real estate is being purchased through shell and numbered companies allowing the name of the real buyer to remain anonymous!
That's not his problem.
If a "Numbered Company" makes an offer on some real estate you have on the Market how exactly do you tell them No?
That has nothing to do with its use in money laundering, or in the sale price of the property. Unless it actually raised the value of the property, he might as well dump it down a hole, and there's no good reason a buyer would pay for it, especially if they were going to bulldoze it all and start over.
Where are you getting that? And also, what relevance does it have?
Again, as I pointed out, you can't really launder money through a public charity very easily. I'd request that you respond to my post on that matter.
Right.
Couldn't he have made even more money if he bought a different property at market value and put the same improvements into it? Why go for a Trump property. It was 2008. It's not as if there wasn't an abundance of distressed properties to pick from.
That's not how money laundering works. The money Trump got is his cut, in its entirety, minus any taxes he paid. The oligarch's cut is the transformation of his $100 million in dirty money he can't freely spend into $60 million that appears clean that he can spend freely, which has a paper trail now because it comes from the sale of his luxury property.
The problem with that is that Trump is not the one who brought the money. But, both parties to money laundering are criminals, so it wouldn't help him.
It's literally a word that toddlers learn.
If Trump didn't actually know what was going on, maybe he's not in trouble. But he has a long pattern of trying to attract "investments" from dubious sources, going back to the Duvaliers.
If Trump hadn't lied about his Russian connections, people might believe him. But he lied about it. And no one really thinks that he didn't have a reason he didn't want us to know about it.
For a Christian, lying is never a good idea.
We see the next big thing that's going "bring Trump down" - Something new every other week or just a rehash of old tired "stories" that don't matter. The mainstream scripted media has to keep their viewers tuning in for the daily brainwashing. Trump just keeps winning for America. :salute:
Lying is never a good idea regardless of a person's religious beliefs. I personally hold myself to a higher standard because it's the right thing to do. Trump lies ... outright. It's well documented. What's worse than his lies is the willingness of his those who surround him to repeat those lies and lie FOR him.
Trump has lied too often and too vehemently about Russia and there are too many coincidences. This is the only explanation for not protecting our democracy from future attacks and disregarding the sanctions.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Don't forget that when Hillary is indicted for her role in the Uranium One deal because there was a lot of money laundering going on which enabled all of those millions of dollars to be donated to the Clinton Foundation!
This is a huge lot in Palm Bach FL. There is not an abundance of those. The Russian got 37 million for a third of it after he subdivided.
You're not making any sense here. How is it he can't freely spend it and then he very publicly spends it in the biggest home transaction in American History?
Again, you're not making any sense here. He offered real estate for sale and someone bought it.
How is that Laundering? I don't think you understand what laundering is if you think buying something expensive constitutes laundering. The money didn't become clean by going to Trump.
Why would you lie about something so obvious? Or maybe you were just easily suckered again. Turns out the faked story got a lot of coverage. Perhaps someone took advantage of your gullibility, again...
Has an Indictment Been Issued in the Uranium One Investigation?
There's no credible evidence linking a January 2018 indictment with a persistent Clinton conspiracy theory.
Perhaps because the indictment contains the Pavlovian buzzword “uranium,” it has been widely reported as being related to the Uranium One deal although no basis in fact has been offered demonstrating how the two cases are related. Other than Rosatom, uranium and a shared witness who was reportedly so unreliable he was dropped from the Justice Department’s investigation into Mikerin, no credible evidence of a connection between the Lambert indictment and the Uranium One sale has been made public.
The only news outlet we could locate that accurately reported the story was the 135-year-old local newspaper, the Frederick News-Post. Otherwise, nationally-oriented blogs and cable news reported information that they did not bother to support with facts, drawing on the tangential similarities between the two cases and presenting them to their audiences as one and the same, leading many to falsely believe an indictment has been issued in a Uranium One investigation.
The first instance we could find of the leap being made from the Uranium One conspiracy to the Lambert indictment was DailyWire.com, a web site owned by right wing commentator Ben Shapiro, which on 12 January 2018 ran the headline “BREAKING: Indictment Handed Out In Russian Bribery Case Involving Uranium One, Hillary Clinton.”
Apparently so. But Clinton had nothing to do with the Trump organization:
Perhaps the most interesting thread is Simpson’s suggestion that the Trump Organization could have been used by Russians to launder money—an arrangement that would have both allowed Kremlin-linked figures to scrub cash and would have created possible blackmail material over the now-president, since the Russian government would be aware that a crime had been committed.
“I've felt all along in the Russia investigation that the most important issues were those that had the potential of exerting a continuing influence over the administration and over U.S. policy,” Representative Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told me Friday. “And if the Russians were laundering money through the Trump Organization, the Russians would know it, the president would know it, and that could be very powerful leverage.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...a-potential-for-russian-leverage-here/551024/
fool asks;
Rex replies
How do the toddlers you know get around that?
fool said:
Rex replies
OK do toddlers learn how to say "Fair Housing Act"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act said:
How do the toddlers you know get around that?
It was the biggest home sale in US history. How did he lie about it? There were articles written. It was not a secret.
But if all you're going to do is subdivide it, you don't need a huge lot.
Not quite. He got $34 million for 38% of it. Not exactly a profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_de_L'Amitie
If he does a transaction for big dollars at one amount, and then sells the property in chunks at different amounts, it has an apparently legitimate paper trail, and it's more difficult to trace the money back to a nefarious transaction.
Likewise, if you offer a box for sale, and someone buys it, how could that be a crime?
Well, obviously because of the details you're deliberately leaving out. Say if the box were full of cocaine. Or, in the case of the real estate transaction, if he knows that the money is dirty and does the transaction to deliberately help conceal its origins, that would also be a crime.
It's not clear from this transaction that that happened here. It's just suspicious.
I'm inclined to ask you what you think money laundering does look like, but to save a bit of time, here:
http://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/money-laundering/
See, it's (obviously) not that buying something expensive constitutes money laundering. But buying something expensive, especially passing that property through a shell company, that can be an essential component of money laundering. All of these elements are present in the property sale we're talking about.
This may not be money laundering. And even if it is, Trump may have enough deniability to get away with it. But it's suspicious, especially given some of Trump's history.
Rex replies
Toddlers learn to say "no".
Exactly what would you say is the national origin of a numbered LLC?
C'mon fool. Being at least marginally savvy about money laundering isn't discrimination on the basis of national origin. You know better than that.