Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

[Bob001]

As a former fraud investigator I can tell you that pretty well all banks work with "known bad actors". To think otherwise is being incredibly naive.
Money is money and most banks and bankers certainly do not see themselves as moral arbiters.

There's a recent book called "Dark Towers" that describes the history of Deutsche Bank. It was notoriously more inclined to take money from known "bad actors," including Russian gangsters, than other banks. It's well-known that it was shoveling money to Trump at a time when all American banks had slammed their doors in his face.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/8071...uption-at-the-bank-that-holds-trump-s-secrets
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/...ank-david-enrich.html?searchResultPosition=10
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/16/dark-towers-review-deutsche-bank-donald-trump

In the U.S., at least, banks have to comply with "know your customer" laws and regulations. Banks may associate with some bad actors, but they are required to at least try to avoid the worst.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Deutsche Bank is NOT the really major bank in Germany - that would be the Sparkassen and Volksbanken.
Deutsche Bank has long ago decided to make the fancy bucks in London and New York, without ever getting the necessary talent to do it well, which is why they had to REPEATEDLY pay fines for breaking the rules.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/jeffrey-epstein-deutsche-bank-settlement.html

https://deutschebankmortgagemonitor.com/about-the-settlement/

nothing baseless about the facts.

 

[Bob001]

Hilarious! Pure speculation and certainly not backed by any credible evidence.
......

Absolutely true and documented. See my post above. That certainly doesn't mean it's the only corrupt operator.

 

[rockinkt]

Absolutely true and documented. See my post above. That certainly doesn't mean it's the only corrupt operator.

The point in question is the claim that Deutsche Bank is the "least risk averse".

So books are now considered some sort of documentary factual evidence.
You do realize you are on a sceptics board - right?

 

[rockinkt]

There's a recent book called "Dark Towers" that describes the history of Deutsche Bank. It was notoriously more inclined to take money from known "bad actors," including Russian gangsters, than other banks. It's well-known that it was shoveling money to Trump at a time when all American banks had slammed their doors in his face.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/8071...uption-at-the-bank-that-holds-trump-s-secrets
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/...ank-david-enrich.html?searchResultPosition=10
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/16/dark-towers-review-deutsche-bank-donald-trump

In the U.S., at least, banks have to comply with "know your customer" laws and regulations. Banks may associate with some bad actors, but they are required to at least try to avoid the worst.

And that same bank can have branches in other countries that do not have those same laws that can - and do - happily ignore that minor inconvenience.
Ever wonder why it is so easy to launder money?

 

[Bob001]

The point in question is the claim that Deutsche Bank is the "least risk averse".

So books are now considered some sort of documentary factual evidence.
You do realize you are on a sceptics board - right?

Are you kidding? The book is a well-received, deeply reported investigation by an experienced financial journalist. What are your sources of information?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The point in question is the claim that Deutsche Bank is the "least risk averse".

So books are now considered some sort of documentary factual evidence.
You do realize you are on a sceptics board - right?

On a skeptics board where, if you want to refute the validity of proposed evidence, you point out the errors and how they undermine the assertion made.

Also, uh yeah, books are documents.

Why is that even a question?

 

[rockinkt]

Are you kidding? The book is a well-received, deeply reported investigation by an experienced financial journalist. What are your sources of information?

I will repeat it and type slowly: The point in question is the claim that Deutsche Bank is the "least risk averse".

Please provide links to the specific claims made in the book you are peddling that state this fact and the comparative analysis it provides to prove the point.

Breathless hype by book reviewers is not evidence of anything.

 

[rockinkt]

On a skeptics board where, if you want to refute the validity of proposed evidence, you point out the errors and how they undermine the assertion made.

Also, uh yeah, books are documents.

Why is that even a question?

If a poster makes a claim as I was responding to - it is up to the maker of the claim to provide evidence of the claim. Please try to keep up.

I saw nothing in the second poster's claim other than the name of a book and a link to breathless reviews. That is not evidence.

I would suggest published papers in reputable peer reviewed journals are prima facie credible evidence. Books? Hilarious!
Until I see a proper analysis or a link to a specific passage with footnotes that explain the sources of any claims made in the book - I will take anything a book states with a grain of salt.

Are you going to start quoting from "The Sasquatch File" by John Green? It's a book - or a "document" as you claim.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that the position of treating every book as authoritative, and the position of treating no book as authoritative, are equally fallacious.

Of course you have to examine any book in question to determine how much stock to put in its information.

 

[Allen773]

Investigative journalism is a great resource, and should never be confused with tabloid “journalism.”

 

[jimbob]

The point in question is the claim that Deutsche Bank is the "least risk averse".

So books are now considered some sort of documentary factual evidence.
You do realize you are on a sceptics board - right?

Deutsche Bank has paid a lot of high-profile fines, which suggests they're doing something different to the other large international banks.

I'm sure that if one went to a bani kn Panama, for example, they might be less averse to money laundering, but seems silly to dismiss their past history even if the statement needed to narrow down to a select number of banks.

 

[Bogative]

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with those children.

 

[angrysoba]

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with those children.

Well okay then, Bogative, but no one was saying you did. Or did they?

 

[Bogative]

Well okay then, Bogative, but no one was saying you did. Or did they?

“When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?” Scarola asked next.

Giuffre replied, “Ghislaine [Maxwell], Emmy, and there was two young girls that I could identify. I never really knew them well anyways. It was just 2 girls from New York.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...-epsteins-island-with-two-young-girls-n736509

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you hoping that someone is going to leap to Clinton's defence? Or is this simply trying to make Trump's close association with Epstein seem better because a Democratic president was also associated with him?

I suppose Clinton did say this about Epstein:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

And he did appoint one of the prosecutors who gave Epstein his unconstitutional plea-deal to his administration. Oh, and girls were also recruited out of Clinton's country club, Mar-A-Largo.

Oh, no wait. All of those are Trump.

I guess maybe Clinton being a scumbag doesn't mean that Trump isn't a scumbag after all.

 

[Wolrab]

Are you hoping that someone is going to leap to Clinton's defence? Or is this simply trying to make Trump's close association with Epstein seem better because a Democratic president was also associated with him?

I suppose Clinton did say this about Epstein:



And he did appoint one of the prosecutors who gave Epstein his unconstitutional plea-deal to his administration. Oh, and girls were also recruited out of Clinton's country club, Mar-A-Largo.

Oh, no wait. All of those are Trump.

I guess maybe Clinton being a scumbag doesn't mean that Trump isn't a scumbag after all.

And Trump went on Epstein's jet 27 times to Clinton's once (from Palm Beach to New York). Oh, no wait, the once was Trump and he had a falling out with Epstein and made the "he likes them young" comment.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And Trump went on Epstein's jet 27 times to Clinton's once (from Palm Beach to New York). Oh, no wait, the once was Trump and he had a falling out with Epstein and made the "he likes them young" comment.

Are you hoping someone is going to leap to Clinton's defence?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Clinton finally getting flushed as a known sexual creep would be a bonus, not a negative. Maybe older Democrats might wring their hands about it, remembering the 90's with some nostalgia, but I don't think a lot of people are going to lose sleep over Bill being outed alongside Trump and the other pedos.

 

[Belz...]

Are you hoping that someone is going to leap to Clinton's defence?

Imagine if liberals kept bringin up Nixon to diss the Republican party.

It's an obsession. They just can't let go of the Clintons.