FinCEN to Share Information with Senate Intelligence Committee

As noted in Wednesday’s post, FinCEN — the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network — was asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee about information regarding connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. News reports indicate that FinCEN will provide the requested information.

From Reuters:

A unit of the U.S. Treasury Department that fights money laundering will provide financial records to an investigation by the Senate into possible ties between Russia and President Donald Trump and his associates, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The Senate Intelligence Committee asked for the records from the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, late last month, the Journal cited the people as saying. (on.wsj.com/2qbNL7K)

One person said the records were needed to decide whether there was collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign, the Journal said.

44 thoughts on “FinCEN to Share Information with Senate Intelligence Committee

  1. rjs

    for the most part, i’d been ignoring the Trump/Russians stories until this week, thinking the allegations to be largely political…that said, his actions and comments of this week convinced me there’s something big there, and i think it involves his family, likely Jared Kushner…he would not be so illogical & hysterical if he were simply trying to cover his own ass…

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      Trump is a real threat to the free-riding liberal political establishment, which includes the mainstream media.

      They won’t go down without a fight, although the liberals and the media have been sinking.

      Bringing Trump down is their only hope.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        “Bringing Trump down is their only hope.”
        trump is bringing himself and his administration down one tweet at a time.

        Reply
  2. Pamela Goodman

    dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/13/1661979/-Is-Everyone-Aware-of-Explosive-Dutch-Documentary

    A must see. Definitely a Trump/Russia and Russian Mafia connection. And his kids know about it

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      It’s guilt by association. We know Putin and Russian oligarchs engage in criminal activity. So, anyone who associates with them at all must be criminals too. Right? It’s no more than another conspiracy theory based on speculation.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        so trump is associated with the kremlin. it will not be too long before the entire republican party will eventually be branded by the kremlin. this will occur because of conservatives like peak, providing blind loyalty to trump. it is going to be hard to wash off the stench of the kremlin association if this blind support continues. the party of reagan, covertly taken over from within by the communists of russia. how ironic.

        Reply
        1. PeakTrader

          Sure, it was criminal behavior Trump holding the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. You liberal/socialist haven’t learned anything from other countries and the past eight years. Maybe now, the FBI will do their job and arrest real criminals like Hillary, while you continue to chase your tail with false narratives.

          Reply
          1. 2slugbaits

            PeakTrader Maybe it’s time you took a break from posting. Your comments are becoming increasingly unhinged and frantic. No one is talking about criminal behavior with respect to the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The concern is and always has been that Trump effectively laundered money for Russian plutocrats. It’s well known that when the real estate market took a hit he was facing liquidity problems if not outright bankruptcy. No reputable western lenders would float him a loan because he was such a bad risk. There have always been strong suspicions that Russian plutocrats propped him up because they needed to find a way to hide money and were willing to take the risk. Trump has refused to explain where he suddenly got the money that kept him afloat. And we’re not talking about just a few tens of millions. These concerns were out in the public domain years before Trump ever decided to run for President. The FBI certainly isn’t convinced that these are “false narratives”; that’s why they are asking for help from FinCEN.

          2. baffling

            peak, you seem to be out of touch with reality. hillary was investigated by the fbi, and they found no reason to pursue any charges against her. you really should let this go.

            on the other hand, it has just been reported that trump passed classified information to the russians. i suppose this should not be investigated, in your worldview. trump is untouchable in your view-above the law. your denial of reality is sad, really.

          3. PeakTrader

            2slugbaits, if you take a break from your conspiracy theories, I wouldn’t have to post responses. Your comments suggest you’re the one “unhinged” and “frantic.”

          4. PeakTrader

            Baffling, Hillary wasn’t charged with the crimes she committed. Trump has been investigated and no crimes have been found.

          5. baffling

            peak, in what was not a very limited investigation, the fbi concluded:
            “we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

            now go back and defend your hero trump, who has passed on classified information to the russians and endangered intelligence resources in the process. go ahead and defend this action. this is behavior you should be in an uproar about, and yet silence. you are sad, really.

          6. PeakTrader

            Baffling, you should read the entire report:

            “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.”

            Then, the report explained she was grossly negligent.

  3. Tom

    I wonder if the Democrats will ever do some introspection as to why they lost the last election. The Russians did not write the Hillary campaign emails expressing disgust and disdain toward ordinary American citizens. The Russians did not leak the debate questions ahead of the CNN debate to give Hillary Clinton an advantage; Donna Brazile did. Hillary Clinton decided not to spend more time in WI, MI, and PA.

    Democrats need to recognize that their arrogance, conceit, and lack of real ideas is what cost them the election.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      It’s a lack of personal responsibility – it takes a village, you didn’t build that, a vast right wing conspiracy, etc.. They’re certainly not going to blame themselves when they can shift blame. The base with support of the media want that, because it makes others look bad.

      Reply
      1. Noneconomist

        What’s your problem with intelligence agencies and Congress conducting more thorough investigations? If the only hing to fear is fear itself and if there’s no “there” there,?

        Reply
    2. 2slugbaits

      Introspection is always a good idea. I’m sure the Democrats will have their own forensic moment. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I would recommend that Trump supporters also engage in a little introspection as to why Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by a large margin. And they should ask themselves whether they would vote for Trump again knowing what we now know about the man. PeakTrader says that 96% would vote for him again. I think that speaks volumes about the ability of Trump voters to live in their own Faux News bubble. Let me give you an example. Just a few minutes ago I checked the various news sites to see what they had to say about tonight’s revelation that Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russians at the WH. It was breaking news at CBS, at NBC, at ABC and at CNN. Over at Fox News the lead headline story at the top of the page in bold type was about Hillary Clinton’s new PAC to resist the GOP agenda. You had to look way over to the left and down half the page to find a very small link that rather casually refers to something about the story. And of course the story was couched in flattering terms that led the reader to believe all of this was a clever case of information sharing to defeat ISIS. So Trump is made to look like a hero.

      And while you’re evaluating Trump’s Electoral College win, Republicans might want to ask whether or not it makes good political sense to have him around in 2018 and 2020. Democrats would dearly love to run against a GOP headed by Trump. They would very likely win back the House. So for their own political survival the smart move would be to find a way to dump Trump and put Pence in the WH. Personally I hope the Republicans don’t do that because it would be very hard for the Democrats to retake the House and Pence might win in 2020. But keeping Trump in the WH is a godsend for the Democrats.

      Reply
  4. Emery

    Everyone in the Trump administration is a victim. They are being attacked by scientists, teachers, engineers, health care professionals, experts of all types, by the OMB, by professional protesters, by non-right wing media. I give the president credit. Pushing back against reality is no easy thing.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      I wouldn’t say they’re victims. They’re more like targets. After the first 100 days, only 2% of people who voted for Trump regret it, and 96% don’t regret it.

      Reply
        1. PeakTrader

          Menzie Chinn, some are public servants wanting to make America great again.

          They’re not doing it for the money or the abuse by professional lawyer/politicians, left-wing activists, and “journalists.”

          Of course, Corporate America and Wall Street are the envy of the world.

          Reply
          1. Emery

            Any thoughts that Trump knows anything (never mind history) goes out the window if you read this article from The Economist. Trump’s incoherence something to behold.
            http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

            I invite you to read the transcript of the interview and tell me if you still have confidence in Trump’s “plans”. The man is frighteningly incoherent. There is no plan, just a grab-bag of ideas without a strategy or direction.

          2. PeakTrader

            I’m not surprised you think business people are “incoherent,” while your conspiracy theories based on nonsense are coherent.

      1. Emery

        It’s becoming more and more obvious that Trump and his company were laundering money over an extensive period of time for various Russian, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and other quasi-governmental/crime operations, utilizing their real estate and hotel businesses as the front. Just before he was fired it has been reported that Comey had asked for assistance from the US Department of the Treasury’s money laundering investigative unit for help. The moment that Trump got a whiff of this inquiry the axe had to fall. The rest is history.
        https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9231-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

        Reply
        1. Emery

          The Trump administration has demonstrated that its major failing is incompetence, rather than evil intent (the intent fluctuates from day to day). So I doubt that Trump and his cronies were actually conspiring with the Russians, because that would require a level of organization and planning that we have seen no sign of.

          I also dislike special prosecutors and special committees, as they tend to go on forever, are used as a political stage, and are a distraction for all involved. But at this point, with Comey fired, what are the options?

          This administration is quickly becoming like those of Berlusconi, spending most of its time and energy protecting itself from the ramifications of its rash and poorly-thought-out actions, and from the dubiously legal actions of its senior members, now and in the past.

          Reply
      2. Noneconomist

        That’s a loss of 1,260,000 + votes, putting him over 4.1 million behind Clinton.. If those votes revert to Clinton, depending on location(s), the outcome of the election might well have changed.

        Reply
          1. Noneconomist

            You said 96%. That equates to about 59.5 million of those who voted.
            That would put Trump around 6 million down.
            Your point?

  5. joseph

    PeakTrader: “Then, the report explained she was grossly negligent.”

    PeakTrader is a lying sack. No we don’t have to be polite about it. When someone lies, they should be called out exactly as what they are.

    No, Comey did not say that Clinton was grossly negligent. Since you can’t find those words from Comey, you are a proven liar. And every time you post here in the future, it should be pointed out that you are a liar.

    Gross negligence is a legal term and Comey, as a lawyer, knows what exactly what gross negligence is. He did not find gross negligence. This is what Comey said: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

    PeakTrader — liar. Not to be believed. Should be disregarded.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      The report didn’t find intent, it found extreme carelessness, which is gross negligence:

      “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

      “Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of gross negligence includes the words “extreme carelessness.”

      According to Webster’s dictionary careless is simply defined as “the failure to take proper care.” “Grossly” and “extremely” are adjectives that have similar meanings. There is no clear difference between “grossly negligent” and “extremely careless.””

      Reply
  6. 2slugbaits

    PeakTrader

    2slugbaits, if you take a break from your conspiracy theories

    Who is advancing a conspiracy theory? There’s no serious doubt that Trump was in financial distress and was unable to borrow from customary sources. There’s a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the Russians were looking for a way to launder money, beyond simply going through Cypriot banks. Trump was a high risk borrower, but the Russian plutocrats were willing to accept the risk. Again, this was common knowledge long before Trump ever decided to run for President. The FinCEN investigation is not about Trump’s investments in Russia (which is what Trump’s lawyer tried to pretend); but rather about Russian investments with Trump.

    And if you think Hillary’s handling of classified information was grossly negligent, how would you characterize Trump’s handling? The fact that he’s President shields him from criminal prosecution, but it doesn’t shield him from the charge of having extraordinarily bad and reckless judgment, not to mention a careless manner with intelligence he received from our allies.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      2slugbaits, there’s no proof Trump laundered money for the Russians or anyone. I suspect, Trump is somewhat careless with highly classified information, since he has a big mouth 🙂

      Reply
      1. Emery

        The experience of being conned is a shocking one. It is a shocking experience because the charlatan prey’s on your trust, your goodwill, your desire for something better. When the rug is finally pulled from under your feet, you look around helplessly at all the people who enabled the fraud and wonder how they could have advised you so badly. But worst of all, you spend years wondering why you ignored the red flags, why you didn’t trust your doubts, and why you believed something that was too good to be true.

        Peak Trader – you’ve been conned!

        Reply
  7. joseph

    PeakTrader: “There is no clear difference between “grossly negligent” and “extremely careless.””

    So PeakTrader demonstrates that he is as ignorant of the law as he is of economics and business. Comey is a lawyer. He knows that gross negligence has an important definition in a crime. If he intended to use the phrase, he would have, but he did not.

    When you say that Comey said he found gross negligence you are simply a flat out liar. And to that we can add ignorant.

    Seriously, your postings come across as sounding like they are from a 12-year-old. From the caliber of your posts, I’m not sure that you have ever held a job in your life. Are you still living in your mother’s basement?

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      Comey used extreme carelessness instead of gross negligence, because he didn’t want the Democrat candidate charged with crimes just before the election. It’s political. Don’t be so ignorant.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        he did not use gross negligence because it was not true. you have this strong desire to convict hillary of something, and an unhealthy obsession with changing the words of others, such as the fbi statements, to reinforce your desired outcome. this is a distortion of reality on your part.

        and yet your comrade trump attempts to obstruct an fbi investigation, fires the director for not being loyal to him, places a russian agent as his intelligence advisor, launders russian mafia money, colludes with russians to interfere with the election, and you have no response other than he is a fine man. sad, really. even rick stryker has remained silent rather than continue his defense of comrade trump.

        Reply
        1. PeakTrader

          I have a strong desire to correct political hacks, and reveal hypocrisies and double standards.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.