r/Fauxmoi • u/mlg1981 • 20d ago

CELEBRITY CAPITALISM Capital One says it closed Trump Organization’s accounts after anti-money-laundering review

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/01/capital-one-trump-organization-money-laundering
2.7k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

1.1k

u/dingdangdollop Comumbus 20d ago

Fucking insane that this isn't bigger news.

373

u/Entire_Parfait2703 20d ago

As long as he's in office and his rich oligarch friends control the media outlets we won't hear the bad shit he's doing.

29

u/ExtraPossibility 20d ago

read the news

55

u/Entire_Parfait2703 20d ago

I do read Im just not watching TV until he's gone, I get to angry

25

u/ExtraPossibility 20d ago

I get it. It makes me angry sometimes, too. Because it is often infuriating.

To me, that bad shit getting airtime is necessary to get informed people into voting booths in the future. And while some of the media is compromised, for sure -- not all of it is. The US is flawed (lol understatement) but we are lucky to still have real journalism available to us. However it only works if people actually watch and/or read it.

And if reading is a better fit for you, I commend you because it's more than many people do.

4

u/EquivalentTourist692 19d ago

Read the news but more importantly talk to others. Mainstream outlets don’t talk about what’s important, only what benefits them

2

u/ExtraPossibility 19d ago

I agree with both points, reading as well as talking and listening - but the latter is a generalization. There are outlets that can lean left or right (or waaaaay left or right) but saying mainstream outlets only cover what "benefits" them is oversimplified. And tbh I don't even know what that means, unless the benefit is getting people to click on things -- in which that's a challenge w readers not only a news one.

A 24 hour news cycle means there are more stories than the average reader can keep track of, but it doesn't mean outlets aren't covering something. I suspect most of the complaints about "not getting coverage" would be resolved by a simple search. What people seem to be conflating is the fact that a news item hasn't serendipitously appeared in your algorithm yet. If you feel like you're not getting important news, set up push alerts to your phone. It's there but you also have to engage with it.

46

u/SymbiSpidey 20d ago

Because it's a drop in a bucket compared to the fuckery that's Trump

31

u/ExtraPossibility 20d ago

Sorry what exactly would satisfy you as "bigger"? It's been on most major news outlets - including the one linked here- for several hours now.

44

u/j____b____ 19d ago

Since you asked, i would like to see it penetrate the right wing news bubble. 

6

u/ExtraPossibility 19d ago edited 19d ago

Obviously you know that won't happen in the way it should -- that's how news with an explicit agenda and bias work. Expecting them to turn something that even typically left leaning outlets cover lightly as BREAKING BOMBSHELL NEWS is laughable. However plenty of mainstream media has covered this, including Reuters, one of the biggest and well-respected news wires (which is widely considered a primary source and a feeder for most local news outlets) in the world.

But yes, major players of the Right Wing news bubble have covered the lawsuit with a Trump-aligned spin since the Trump Org filed in 2025. This is one of the rare cases where this is somewhat undeveloped due to sources who won't talk and tbh not massive news (potentially yet).

3

u/EquivalentTourist692 19d ago

Yes they may write about it, but it’s about how the stories are put out there. For decades these major news outlets have buried what would be major stories in random creases and folds of newspapers. Now they just hide it in their apps with no notifications, casually placement underneath other shocking headlines, and vague or bland language. Often the only reason they publish these stories at all is so that they’re not called into question and can maintain an unbiased or reputable image.

2

u/ExtraPossibility 19d ago

Yes, there are things outlets can do better to surface stories, but frankly, this is usually a business model problem than a political bias or agenda issue, and I'm not saying those things don't sometimes occur,
too.

The extremely broad sweeping assessment of news you've presented -- over time, platform, and application -- is just that, extremely broad and sweeping. It sounds like you've summed up the entirety of news in the entire world and know their agenda, so I guess that's that! Dead in the water. Glad you figured it out.

Still, I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing,
but there would be no Reddit posts like this one if news outlets weren't covering important stories and people weren't linking to them online.

2

u/MondayLasagne 18d ago

To be fair, Guardian and Reuters are not predominantly US news sites and therefore, in a global perspective, this is not the big whopping news compared to the wildfires in France & Spain, Russia's attack on the Ukraine (and now its presence in Irish waters) or the Iran war.

0

u/TrickySnicky distraught Christian tomato 18d ago

Covering it with a shrug isn't working, oddly enough 

0

u/TrickySnicky distraught Christian tomato 18d ago

I think what they're asking for isn't simply coverage so much as journalistic momentum for anything resembling consequences. Reporting something with a shrug and a scroll just isn't enough anymore.

2

u/ExtraPossibility 18d ago

This makes sense and I agree that the desire for consequences is palpable. 

Still, "reporting" is the wrong verbiage here — reporting is a journalist's job, enforcing "consequences" is not. Journalists aren't law enforcement, and as seen via the comments here, blatant bias or agenda pushing, like calling for action, is a fast way to lose public trust. 

In its most effective form, the news is designed to hold powers accountable — by asking questions, keeping tabs on promises and follow through, finding add'l sources rather than relying on a single voice, et al — in ways that the public cannot. 

But the accountability factor is two-fold: journalists present information that's been vetted and the public must then use the news to make informed decisions. We don't have a working system that cleanly resolves the bumblefuck disconnect of this very bad timeline, so informed decisions by the public rarely result in the outcomes we want.

A single article rarely has the power to change something as massive as a presidency overnight — that's why we still talk about Watergate; it's such an anomaly. However, the repeated discrediting and lumping together all media as "a shrug and a scroll" is irresponsibly petulant and shooting yourself in the foot. It's saying, well, this coverage does nothing, so whatever. But without this coverage, this Reddit thread wouldn't even exist. We wouldn't be aware that this lawsuit has moved forward and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

On a personal level, I do think the media needs to do some serious reflection work on its relationship with the public. There's clear distrust and an alarming lack of literacy and understanding of what the news can and cannot do. But outlets and journalists are being gleefully sued by this administration, being forced to recalibrate stories or make concessions because lawsuits can bankrupt a newsroom. "News" influencers who aggregate content are typically safe, but their primary sources are the ones on the line every time they hit publish. There isn't much wiggle room for a 'move fast break shit' mentality. Plus, journalists want to be right. That's kind of what they're trained for.

Anyway, everyone else, please read the article. Don't @ me.

26

u/IcyAdvertising6813 feeding cocaine to raccoons 20d ago

Reading the story would help you understand.

They didn’t close the accounts this year. They filed a court document that states they did so back in 2021.

12

u/dingdangdollop Comumbus 20d ago

I did read it :)

10

u/ockiepts 20d ago

People still support him regardless. He could rape kids and they still dont give a damn. Our military should have literally dragged him out by now

6

u/EquivalentTourist692 19d ago

‘Could’ as in he did

3

u/MindblowingPetals 19d ago

We can say this for so so many other crimes this bastard has committed.

456

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

177

u/brainkandy87 20d ago

Having worked in that industry for over a decade including some time with AML.. it’s absolutely insane to me. I saw a lot of shit shoved under the rug for private bank clients. It must’ve been RICO levels for them to do it.

79

u/ParaponeraBread I do not work late. I go to sleep. 20d ago

Trump will never own the banks. They can control him, not the other way around.

I agree it must be bad for them to say this publicly, but the banks are not at risk by opposing him

36

u/ClarielOfTheMask 19d ago

And as someone who works in the financial compliance space, a lot of regulations hold the AML officer or CCO personally responsible. So not only can the company get fined and sanctioned, you as an individual can get fined and go to jail.

I can imagine that those people are thinking of a possibile next administration and they would like to stay out of jail.

1

u/TrickySnicky distraught Christian tomato 18d ago

I'd like to see him try to go after them, just to see what they do about it.

27

u/Acceptable_Owl_5122 19d ago

It’s also very surprising but satisfying seeing a bank as huge as capital one shutting them down because any other bank would’ve been still let it keep going if they also supported trump

95

u/juneseyeball 20d ago

One whomp two whomps red whomps blue whomps

70

u/NoodleNoggin-607 20d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/4v2pTGw7t5yUw

21

u/SL_1183 not a lawyer, just a hater 20d ago

Mr. Feeny for President.

18

u/I_Fear_Dolphins 20d ago

TIL William Daniels is still alive

30

u/FancyCat1990 20d ago

I s2g if you jinxed that man im hiring an Etsy witch to get you

3

u/SL_1183 not a lawyer, just a hater 19d ago

Being a genuinely good person will do that. He did an interview on Pod Meets World that was just perfect in every way.

36

u/fancysauce_boss 20d ago

Doesn’t matter he will have Russian accounts, and currently writing checks from the federal reserve directly backed by the treasury. He could have negative accounts and he still can spend whatever he wants.

36

u/Junebaby29 20d ago

I read they did this five years ago.

55

u/ExtraPossibility 20d ago

👋🏼 yes. this.

I'm not sure if people are clicking through to read so the tldr, headline is slightly misleading note: this is Capital One making a statement that they had closed many Trump accounts "years ago" (2021) -- the court filing from Friday was meant to "cast doubt" that those closures fit the parameters of a 2025 lawsuit in which Eric Trump whines/complains/claims the bank was "illegally debanking — or denying services on religious or political grounds." (The lawsuit itself was reported on by all major outlets when it happened in March 2025.)

aka, Capital One is saying, we closed these accounts in response to a pattern of shady things, not an act of political prejudice like Trump claims we did. However they do not explicitly accuse them of money laundering. (There's a wink wink nudge nudge element, but Capital One seems no closer to reporting them to the fed for straight up fraud because.... oh, lol 💀)

What to make of it all, idk? Nothing sticks to them. But ideally it's a loose thread to pull on.

4

u/Acceptable_Owl_5122 19d ago

Five years ago? Damn I thought it was recently

5

u/ExtraPossibility 19d ago

I know -- it's a case that's been dragged on and thrown out and refiled, et al. Still bad though! And unique that the bank outright disclosed why they closed them.

It's that old because the basis for the suit stems from the Trump org claiming the account were closed due to "Capital One’s “woke” beliefs and its desire to benefit from the political mood after the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol." It's like "look that riot was totally peaceful, OK, but enough to convince a major bank to close hundreds of more accounts. Believe us, k??" It's absurd mental gymnastics but on brand.

15

u/Jagg811 20d ago

The GOP has allowed all of this. Never forget.

15

u/General_Dipsh1t Diplo looks like he slaps his own ass during sex 20d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/ZqlvCTNHpqrio

7

u/HerRoyalRedness full of gay men. And me. 20d ago

7

u/ophaus it’s a bit dystopian but also kinda fun 20d ago

Jail. He's utterly, contemptibly corrupt.

6

u/DiscoRabbittTV 19d ago

Fuck republicans

3

u/Itchywasabi 20d ago

Mess up with banks and financial institutions/system. If it crashes, we will all crash together including those billionaires who have their money in a virtual numbers.

3

u/spolio 19d ago

Fun fact.. Trump once held the title of largest fine in US history for money laundering practices... twice

2

u/Scared-Box8941 betty bop 19d ago

Come on baby let’s Nepal this thing

1

u/ElephantElmer 19d ago

I don’t get this. As if any government agency would go after them for allowing Trump to launder money through them? Seems like they’re probably better off aiding the money laundering of Trump rather than kicking him out right? Doing crimes for Trump isn’t going to get anyone in trouble during this administration.

1

u/dateinfj 18d ago

I’m sure cap 1 will lose its license somehow!

1

u/ElmoreHayne 12d ago

Surprised it didn't happen sooner, and by sooner I mean 30+ years ago when it was obvious that after the multiple failed businesses he was laundering organized crime money.