Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

[Faux pas]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

[Stallion]

1. So the Original Reuters Article is Misleading Since that's Only South Florida

"A Reuters review found that at least 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses have bought at least $98.4 million worth of property in seven Trump-branded luxury towers in southern Florida."

how about New York? Washington D.C.?

[Igel]

2. When there are claims of wrong-doing

and the evidence is provided, I like there to be evidence of actual wrong-doing.

Take one example from the article. A condo was purchased in 2010. In a Trump building.

But earlier it said that the condos in the building were sold by Trump in something like 2001. Now, the article also says (and I know from watching others do this) when you buy a condo you buy it from the owner of the condo, not from the owner of the building it's in (unless the owner bought the condo back). So in 2001 the condo became owned by a non-Trump and some time later it was sold by a non-Trump to a Russian non-Trump. Trump gets the flat management fees whether it's a Russian or a non-Russian non-Trump. And it doesn't matter if the Russian non-Trump reports the asset or not, it's still something he owns and, presumably, pays the flat management fees on. There's no suggestion that the Trump management company repurchased the condo prior to selling it to a Russian.

Now, perhaps if Trump personally managed the building there could be a suggestion of a personal relationship there. But that's not even suggested, so there's no suggestion of a suggestion. The best is that Trump visited these buildings at least 4 times in 12 years.

Some Russians had a lot of money in the last decade, mostly from corrupt practices. But they bought a lot of properly during the Obama years. "Tramp" also had, for reasons I can't fathom, a lot of not just name recognition but also prestige in Russia (and in the US).

I see evidence. I see claims of wrong doing. I don't see that the evidence is evidence of wrong doing. Just sort of "this happened in the same general areas as this, so they *have* to be closely connected in precisely this way" sort of reasoning. We have post-hoc as the adjective for imputed temporal causality where none is shown. Can I coin prope-hoc for this kind of logic? "Association fallacy" seems to already have a different meaning.

Don't like Trump. Don't like specious reasoning even more.

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. I somewhat agree.

This "logic" is similar to one in which an investigator points to a cemetery and says, "This is where the body is buried. Now go find it." The loose association to which you refer is one that points to money laundering since Trumpy's been CAUGHT at money laundering in the past, and the external elements of more money laundering MIGHT be found within the cluster of condo purchases by Russian oligarchs in the recent AND distant past. Trumpy's been in the money laundering market for decades, and THAT will be exposed when Mueller releases it. BTW, money laundering has apparently spread to the leadership of the GOP, and Mueller has also likely already issued a sealed indictment of the Republican Party for their acceptance (via Kislyak and others) of laundered money for the 2016 campaign.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. "Don't like specious reasoning even more."

amen.

Having said that, lemme add one more fact to the mix.

It has been reported in several books, and via at least one deposition I read, that Trump has been involved with selling condos in his buildings, and that he has a habit of taking credit for the construction of "his" buildings ( which is why he took out so many loans), so it is "my" project, "my" buildings.
As soon as as there is any trouble, esp. legal trouble, he claims to only have a management fee interest.

It is also a fact that many of the names turning up in the Mueller investigation have lived, or do, live in NYC Trump Tower.
But when pressed, Trump denies he knows any of them, despite much evidence to the contrary, even when photos show him with the people he says he has never met.