maxine waters asked for it. we heard the president tell the new york times if the muller investigation started looking for business deals, he could consider that a violation. that might be something he would consider to be out of bounds for the muller investigation. we ve seen this very strong and a little in my estimation weird reaction from the president s lawyers today now that this story about the subpoena has come out. given the reaction and red flags that the trump side has waved about this, do you think they are right to be freaked out? do you think this is an area of real danger in terms of this investigation? i think what happens with the muller investigation is because his it s been such a black box that any small show or something about the news, i wouldn t be so hyped up. the muller team appears to be approaching months ago. we talked about they issued a
because we saw a few things change today once the president s lawyers started making statements about there not being a subpoena and hard for me to parse what they are contesting. we saw routers change the headline and we saw wall street journal change the subheadline. you guys standing by reporting. do you understand what it is they are raising an issue with? well, needless to say after the strong push back, we went and, you know, we were confident that the original reporting was correct. we stand by that. i do think that you ve got to look at a subpoena for records related to trump as whether or not it was for all records related to trump or if it was lots of business transactions that touched on trump, trump family, trump associates, et cetera. okay. there is a lot of wiggle room. as you refer to the story in july, you look at the real estate transactions, of course, a lot of them would have been done through deutsche bank.
subpoena for records for lots of banks regarding paul manafort and couple months later, a detailed indictment of manafort and gates that had a mountain of information about transactions, financial transfers from cypress to a variety of rug dealers, landscape, architects here in the u.s. they collect that information. just doesn t appear to be a fishing expedition. seems that the muller track record seems to go find something when they think there is something of interest there. we shouldn t assume it s thproo of wrongdoing such as it s necessary to make the next step to do what they will do. we can observe a freakout by the president s lawyers. no reason to assume that is warranted but this is a receiver use matter in terms of the way the muller investigation is approaching. right. there must be a reason for him to want the information they are trying to get but having said that, i don t think we should all get hot and bothered about something happening next week or christmas. i
to that extent i didn t find it a surprise. when we talked about deutsche bank and their potential interest to the muller investigation when you did that reporting, one of the things we talked about is the fact deutsche bank refused request from the u.s. congress, they when they responded to max scene waters and said they would not send you anything, they were polite about it but you said at the time that as far as you understood the compliance obligations and the privacy obligations of banks in this regard, they were not allowed to respond to anything but a subpoena. yes, they would need and want to have a subpoena to cover themselves. they can t give away sensitive client information. they can defend themselves by saying the u.s. government issued a subpoena requiring us to turnover information, that s why we re diddioing it. they had this now and not what
russian in 2008. when that story came out from bloomberg news in july, there was quite a lot of push back to it but bloomberg stood by their reporting as did the fall of the money reporter who broke that news and he s here with us tonight in a full scale white house freakout over today s news that his earlier reports were correct and that part of the muller investigation involves a subpoena, one that deutsche bank and investigative report er. great to view yo with u with us tonight. you blush. sorry, i don t mean to embarrass you. you explain the importance, did i say anything that struck you as wrong or we should clarify? no, we stand by our reporting. it was interesting you noted to get this level of push back from the white house. the white house is pushing back, help me understand this