This article from last month explains background of the DB money-laundering charges:
Germanys troubled Deutsche Bank faces fines, legal action and the possible prosecution of senior management because of its role in a $20 billion Russian money-laundering scheme, a confidential internal report seen by the Guardian says.The bank admits there is a high risk that regulators in the US and UK will take significant disciplinary action against it. Deutsche concedes that the scandal has hurt its global brand and is likely to cause client attrition, loss of investor confidence and a decline in its market value.
Deutsche Bank was embroiled in a vast money-laundering operation, dubbed the Global Laundromat. Russian criminals with links to the Kremlin, the old KGB and its main successor, the FSB, used the scheme between 2010 and 2014 to move money into the western financial system. The cash involved could total $80bn, detectives believe.
It appears that the Trump's are caught up in this, and the truth will eventually come out, even though Trump is trying to keep it secret.
Deutsche is also under scrutiny in Washington over its financial dealings with Donald Trump. On 15 April, Democrats from the House intelligence and financial services committees issued a subpoena, demanding the bank provide documents about its lending to the president. Over two decades, Trump borrowed more than $2 billion from Deutsche. In 2008, he defaulted on a $45m loan repayment and sued the bank. Its private wealth division in New York subsequently loaned Trump a further $300m a move that bemused insiders and which has yet to be fully explained.
Link to story: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme
Do you want to know what Bernie said to Chuck Todd on Meet the Press yesterday?
Here is the transcript:
CHUCK TODD: Well, I think another way of looking at it is you have to win, right? And you have to -- I think one of the cases you need to make to the Democrats is when -- you know, the former head of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, and I gather that Joe Biden has a lot of support in Pennsylvania. But here's what he said about you. He said this. "I'm supremely confident Bernie Sanders could not win Pennsylvania. When Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren open their mouths, many, many Democrats in Pennsylvania stick their fingers in their ears." Tell us how you win Pennsylvania.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, you know, let me just say this to Ed, who I've known for many years, and to the entire Democratic establishment. Let me tell this to Ed, that there are millions of people who are sick and tired of that Democratic establishment. What Ed should know is that a recent poll that came out had me, if I'm not mistaken, eight points ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania. We've had polls which have me way ahead of him in Michigan and Wisconsin and, in fact, all over this country. Now, the reason that we can beat, that my campaign can beat Donald Trump is we're going to create the kind of excitement that we need to bring out the large voter turnout. We're going to bring out young people, who not only are interested and are going to fight for real climate change, they want to raise that minimum wage to $15 an hour, a fight that I have been helping to lead. They want healthcare for all through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program. They understand that it is absurd that young people should be leaving college 50,000, 60,000, 100,000 dollars in debt. They want public colleges and universities tuition-free. They want criminal justice reform. They want immigration reform. And the truth is that our campaign, I think, can generate that excitement. Our generation can talk to some, some of the Trump supporters, who now know that they were lied to, when Trump said he was going to provide healthcare to everybody and then tried to throw 32 million people off their healthcare. I think we are the campaign that can beat Donald Trump.
CHUCK TODD: Senator, I would argue, you made a very similar case against Hillary Clinton four years ago. And you came up short. Why do you think, this time -- especially when it seems like you have an exhaustive -- I'm just saying, you have, you have a part of the Democratic Party -- that seems to be gravitating toward Biden. Go ahead.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: You know, we came up short. Yeah, we took on the entire Democratic establishment. We took on the Democratic National Committee. We took on every Democratic governor. We took on every Democratic mayor. And we ended up winning 22 states and 13 million votes and, in fact, bringing forth an agenda that transformed the Democratic Party. Four years ago, people were not talking about the issues they're talking about now. So I understand that our campaign is unique in the sense that we're going to try to win the Democratic primary. We're going to try to beat the -- Trump. But you know what else we're going to try to do? We're going to try to transform the United States of America, deal with this massive level of income and wealth inequality, deal with Wall Street, deal with the greed of the drug companies and the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry. So our campaign has a different goal. It's to transform this country. And we're taking on the entire establishment, when we do that, including Ed Rendell.
This link discloses all of Biden's positions
This is posted in the interest of having a dialogue about the issues.
OK, here is a chart from Forbes showing Sanders' income from book royalties.
Here's the link to Forbes:
Also, here's the link to FEC filings showing: Bernie spent $444,937.50 of his campaign dollars on his book "Our Revolution".
Sanders' book royalties included a $505,000 advance on his book Where We Go From Here, which was published in 2018, Newsweek reported.
This is why he has so much income even though this book sold only 26,000 copies.
The publisher figured that since his book "Our Revolution" was a bestseller, then his new book would be one also.
But "Our Revolution" was a bestseller only because he sold the books to himself, using money donated to his campaign.
Somehow all of this doesn't seem quite kosher. But it does explain how Bernie got rich by running for president.
Democrats won the 2018 midterm elections by 10 million votes, the largest margin in history.
And it was mostly because of women voters turning out to send a message to the GOP. According to Pew, nearly 60% of women voted for Democrats and just 40% voted for Republicans. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/)
Now, thanks to the anti-women actions being taken by Republicans at all levels of government, women are more angry than ever.
With new state laws making abortion illegal, the GOP has further awakened and angered the sleeping giant known as the female electorate. (53% of all votes cast are cast by women.)
This means that 2020 will probably be a Blue Tsunami unlike anything we've ever seen.
It will be helped by the ongoing hearings and investigations in the House which will let the American public know that Trump is indeed both a traitor and a criminal.
The best thing that could happen for Democrats is for Republicans in various states to continue to pass stupid anti-women laws. They'll all be thrown out in court anyway, but in the meantime they will serve the great purpose of activating and motivating tens of millions of women voters.
Maybe 2020 will be the year that a woman is elected as president after all.
On Saturday, CNN commentator Rachael Bade told Christi Paul on New Day Weekend that even if Democrats dont ultimately vote to impeach President Donald Trump, just the act of opening impeachment proceedings would be an important step to holding the president accountable and undermining his efforts to stonewall investigators.
Investigators in particular who have seen subpoena deadlines come and go, multiple every week, people like [Rep.] Jamie Raskin [(D-MD)], these are the folks that are feeling the most frustrated, said Bade. Remember, Judiciary Committee has the authority to start impeachment proceedings. They have been talking about potentially trying to make that case.
So, what youre going to see, is youre going to see a lot of Democrats go public and say, Listen, theres a difference between voting to impeach Trump and just voting to start an inquiry, because once they open that investigation, investigators feel like the courts will fast-track everything to get them the information they need. That it will be very hard for the Trump Administration to keep them from getting these documents. That theyre keeping them from actually hearing from witnesses.
Bade acknowledged that there many moderates in the party are not quite ready to take that leap. So, these members are going to have to convince the public that this is a good idea. And theyre also going to have to convince their colleagues. But I think over the next week, youre going to hear a lot more people like Jamie Raskin saying, Listen, we need to consider impeachment inquiry, starting these proceedings. It doesnt mean we have to vote to impeach him. We should start having these hearings.'
I think it might be.
"First came the sternly worded letters. Then the subpoenas. Now the votes to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of Congress.
As House Democrats plod ahead investigating President Donald Trump, against unprecedented stonewalling by the White House, they are pursuing a long-game strategy thats playing out in the committee rooms, the courthouse and in the court of public opinion. And its going to take time.
Some Democrats say the administrations blockade is leaving them almost no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry not necessarily to impeach Trump, but as part of a legal strategy to force the administration to comply with their requests for documents and testimony.
Things are coming to a tipping point, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Judiciary Committee. Were running out of options, said another on the panel, Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla. I think were on the road, said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif."
Read More: https://www.apnews.com/b1005ff321144a58856cd1d43937dc03
"Trump is so terrified of Joe Biden winning Pennsylvania that he is overseeing his reelection campaign in the state."
The Los Angeles Times reported:
"Moving to get a grip on the situation, the Trump political team a few weeks ago traveled to Harrisburg, Pa., for a meeting with Republican National Committee and state GOP officials to address concerns over party infrastructure, organizational readiness and their string of losses, according to two officials with knowledge of the meeting."
"The Trump campaign officials including David Urban, who oversaw Trumps 2016 operation in Pennsylvania, and Trump 2020 political directors Bill Stepien and Chris Carr came to make it clear that theyll be running the show, one attendee said."
"Biden is leading Trump by 11 points in Pennsylvania. White voters in the state have fled Trump for Biden at this early stage. The problem isnt state Republicans. The issue is Donald Trump. The presidents personality, conduct, and behavior have rubbed many Pennsylvania voters who supported Obama but flipped to Trump in 2016 the wrong way."
"Joe Biden has the perfect message and temperament for Pennsylvania, where voters love voting for moderates like Sen. Bob Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf. Pennsylvania isnt a place where far left or far right play well. The left does better in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The right does better in the rural areas of the state, but as a whole, moderation makes for a successful statewide candidate in Pennsylvania."
One of the other posts on this forum says, in arguing against Joe Biden:
"I dont think the best alternative to Trump is another 70-something white man."
And a lot of people think it's OK to express these kinds of thoughts.
What if I said I was against someone because she was a young black woman? Would that be OK?
Is it OK to be against someone because he is an old white man?
Seems like a double standard and it could have some very negative consequences if people on this forum think it's OK.
I see a lot of this and I really think we should encourage people to stop expressing their candidate preferences based on age, race and sex.
What do you think?