Trump Money Laundered for the Russians?

In what appears to be an intentional leak, a story was run by CNBC/NBC regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting documents from the financial intelligence unit of the Treasury Department (FinCEN), about money laundering violations by the Trump Taj Mahal from 2010-2012.  Apparently, this is part of that Senate probe into the Russia/Trump connection. In essence, the "Taj" was found guilty of paperwork violations with regard to "high rollers", whereby, in some cases, the Social Security numbers on the required filings under the Anti-Money Laundering law (AML) did not match the name appearing on the filing.  Further, the casino failed to report persons who had pumped more that $10,000 into slot machines in one day.  As a result, the Trump Taj Mahal was fined $50 million in 2015.

The trouble with the entire story is that the casinos prime violators of the AML are not only restricted to the one with "Trump's" name on it.   Caesar's Palace was fined $9.5 million.  The Vegas Sands paid $47.4 million to avoid prosecution under AML.  Wynn Resorts is rumored to be under a similar investigation.  None of these have anything to do with Donald Trump.

Now, here's the biggest problem with the story.  Donald Trump had basically divested himself of most of his interests in the parent company that owned the Trump Taj Mahal in 2009 following a bankruptcy.  Something that Hillary Clinton was quick to point out on the campaign trail.  At the same time that Trump divested his interest in that holding company, he stepped down as its CEO.  But, his name was still associated with the Taj Mahal under a licensing agreement that was struck at the time he stepped down. So, the bottom line is that the whole story seems to be political in order to label Trump as a money launderer.  I am quite sure a Senate Democrat was at the heart of the leak.  Further, if there is any evidence that a single Russian was one of the AML violators, it will be spread all over the news as if, somehow, Trump was personally responsible.

References:

Russia probe: Senate requests Trump documents from agency that monitors money laundering: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/russia-probe-senate-requests-documents-from-money-laundering-watchdog-agency.html

Trump Taj Mahal fined a record $10m for willfully violating Bank Secrecy Act: https://calvinayre.com/2015/02/12/casino/trump-taj-mahal-fined-10m-violating-bank-secrecy-act/

Trump Bankruptcies: Bankruptcy No. 6: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/

Caesars Palace to pay $9.5 million in fines for money laundering violations: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/sep/08/caesars-palace-agrees-95-million-fine-money-launde/

Hillary Clinton will visit Atlantic City on Wednesday, where she plans to highlight Donald Trump's business record, ABC News reported Friday: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/hillary-clinton-may-be-appearing-at-taj-mahal-in-a/article_ac4a4186-3ff6-11e6-9a38-c71e8dcc3563.html

Democrats Bury Their Racist Past With a $20 Bill

Just recently, the Treasury Department announced that it was replacing Andrew Jackson's face on the twenty dollar bill with that of Harriet Tubman.  It is interesting that it is being done in this, an election year, by a Democrat-run Treasury Department and without any approvals from anyone but themselves and, I suppose, Barack Obama.  In one fell swoop, Democrats have achieved putting a black woman on the old "Jackson" bill.  How's that for currying favor (and votes) from both women and black voters.

It is also interesting that this Democrat Treasury would chose to give Jackson, a former President, the boot rather than remove some other non-President like Hamilton or Ben Franklin.  Because, you see, it was the philosophy of the Jackson Democracy that ultimately evolved into the Democrat Party.  In fact, the symbol of the party, the donkey, was first used by Jackson.  During the 1828 elections, he was referred to by his opponents as a "Jackass",  and rather than reject that accusation, he decided, instead, to use it as a campaign symbol.

However, I do think that the real reason for replacing Jackson with the black abolitionist Tubman is the fact that this Democrat Treasury could, then, erase a slave-owning Democrat President from constant public view.  You see, Jackson was quite the slaver.  He owned a 1,000 acre plantation known as the Hermitage Plantation that was exclusively maintained, cultivated, and harvested by black slaves made up of men, women, and children.  Not exactly the type of image that the modern Democrat Party needs in their historical background.

So...out of sight, out of mind.  Mission accomplished by our first Black President!  And, it was a mission that had no real basis for needing to be done.  Especially when you consider that, for decades, the name "Jackson" has been the generally accepted slang to mean the $20 bill.  My guess is that slang term will last long after the Tubman image has been replaced on the "twenty and Jackson may never really be erased from people's minds.

References:

Hamilton to say on $10, Jackson getting replaced by Tubman: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/treasurys-lew-to-announce-hamilton-to-stay-on-10-bill-222204

Jacksonian Democracy: http://www.history.com/topics/jacksonian-democracy

Slavery | Andrew Jackson's Hermitage Plantation: http://thehermitage.com/learn/mansion-grounds/slavery/

Treasury Selling GM Stock Last December -- A Wee Bit Of Insider Trading?

Back in December, the Treasury Department announced that they would sell off the last remaining shares of GM stock that it owned since the bailout, and since becoming publicly-traded once again in 2010.  It also sold a block of shares in November.  This was somewhat surprising since GM's stock price was largely on a tear due to good sales activity ; moving from just under $20 a share in mid-2012 to a record of more than $40 a share last December; and, as such, it was looking like the chances that the taxpayers would be left holding the bag with billions of dollars of losses were being diminished by the prospect that the stock price would continue to rise.  But, rather than hold out for that prospect, Treasury's sell left the American tax payer a $10.5 billion loss.

Now, as it turns out, Treasury's selling when they did was near perfectly timed because, from that point forward, the stock leveled off and, then, began falling throughout this year.  In fact, the stock price is off about 15% from its December highs.   It was almost as if Treasury knew, somehow,  that GM, because of their 10-year avoidance of an ignition switch problem, would result in having to recall and repair millions of automobiles and potentially suffer millions of dollars in lawsuits and fines, all of which could send the stock price into free fall.

While I applaud the fact that Treasury was able to "cap" taxpayer losses by selling when they did, the whole thing smells a bit like "a little bird told me" that the government was about to lower the hammer on GM's ignition problem.  Now, I can understand that previous liquidations were done while the stock price was falling, and those actions would be naturally done to minimize further losses.  But, to sell when they did, while the stock price was rising,  makes no trading sense unless it was known that the stock was at a peak. 


References:

Treasury sells rest of GM stock, ends bailout with $10.5-billion loss: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-general-motors-bailout-treasury-stock-20131209,0,4629861.story#axzz2xkoFDjLm