Anonymous wrote:I read the Slate article and am hoping someone can explain in plain English.
- someone noticed reports were disappearing. Is it like, they saw it in the database one day and went to look the next day and it was gone? But they have no way to prove it was there the day before?
- Shouldn't the bank have a copy of the report? The article says the bank filed the report into the database
- Doesn't the database have an audit trail that would show anything that was removed/deleted?
I guess this whistleblower was trying to call attention but now that that's done, it seems like it shouldn't be too hard to piece together what happened.
Anonymous wrote:I read the Slate article and am hoping someone can explain in plain English.
- someone noticed reports were disappearing. Is it like, they saw it in the database one day and went to look the next day and it was gone? But they have no way to prove it was there the day before?
- Shouldn't the bank have a copy of the report? The article says the bank filed the report into the database
- Doesn't the database have an audit trail that would show anything that was removed/deleted?
I guess this whistleblower was trying to call attention but now that that's done, it seems like it shouldn't be too hard to piece together what happened.
Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.
Anonymous wrote:I’d like to believe that Mueller requested the reports to be hidden due to the explosive information in them. I believe if trump and his mob were behind this they would have deleted all of them not just a couple.
Anonymous wrote:The info that was released showed Cohen’s shell company receiving payments of about $1m to sell access to trump. Already the groups that made these payments are cleaning house. The general counsel of Novartis was forced out this week because of this.
Now this new disclosure shows Cohen got an additional $3m in payments.
Crook.
Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration. In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.