Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. It is kind of funny. We have been getting anonymous leaked stories for a year and a half. We have people that have posted on Russia/conspiracy four and five times every single day for over year. Literally thousands of posts by hundreds of different people. We finally, for the first time as it relates to Trump/Russia get actual sourced testimony and facts and no one wants to talk about it. I wonder why that is?
  2. Tuco (and the others)- Pretty much everything you said above is accurate. And, it is the reason that there needed to be an investigation. The initial email from Goldstone sounded quite suspicious. But you keep ignoring the most obvious point, they have been doing investigations and they (the SIC- which I have been reading lately on here is both bi-partisan and professional) interviewed, under oath and penalty of perjury, all of the participants in the meeting. They answered all of the questions independent of each other and they all gave the same basic story. The exact same story that they have given publicly. Now I know the absolute crazies believe that they are all in cahoots and lying, but that is silly. They have emails and texts and all other correspondence form these actors from before and after the meeting. Read their testimony. There is a reason that none of the usual crazies (Hugo, triple etc.) are commenting on this. It is because this was not an anonymous leaker in a news article. It was not the wild speculation of a blogger/twitterer. It is the actual transcript of the testimonies of the parties involved. These are the actual facts and the actual evidence we have. This is, for almost the first time, actual factual evidence. And if any of you are being even remotely honest, you will agree that the likelihood that mueller can make any kind of collusion/conspiracy case out of this particular meeting is virtually nil. You still have lots of other angles to speculate on to get trump. But this meeting was one of the biggest arrows in everyone's quiver. And it is DOA for practical purposes. This does not mean Trump is completely exonerated at all. There is still lots of stuff to investigate. But this single particular line, is dead. As for your particular interest in the lawyer and Ike and Preet, there certainly does not seem to be anything weird in it to me. The lawyers were heavily involved in the Prezevon case that Preet was heading. Obviously a change in the lead prosecutor in the middle to end of the case would be a big deal. Typically, all of the US attorneys get summarily fired by the incoming Potus's. Clinton, Bush, Obama etc. Occasionally there is one or two left over. It was unusual that Trump wanted to initially keep Preet and then unusual when he left. It is not the least bit unusual for some of the parties involved (including the lawyers and business executives) to speculate on what the implications for the case would be. It would be weird if they did not speculate on it. Settling cases days before trial is hardly unusual. Preet himself congratulated his replacement for the settlement. You posted a statement by the lawyers for Prezevon who liked the settlement. Here is what the US had to say said about the settlement: ""Under the terms of this settlement, the defendants have agreed to pay not just what we alleged flowed to them from the Russian treasury fraud, but three times that amount, and roughly 10 times the money we alleged could be traced directly into US accounts and real estate," acting Manhattan US Attorney Joon H. Kim said." " A letter filed on December 12 and signed by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd said that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York had no contact with President Donald Trump, his administration’s personnel, his relatives, or his campaign officials regarding the case, known informally as Prevezon. "The decision to settle was made by career… prosecutors based on the merits and on a conclusion that the proposed settlement represented a highly favorable resolution of the case for the United States," said the letter, which was stamped November 9.
  3. I agree that any POTUS probably should not be able to be indicted while in office. Mueller should complete his investigation and give the results to congress and let them decide if the POTUS should be removed from office. After trump is out of office, he should be subject to the same standards as anyone else.
  4. Lulz. This is the problem when people get so emotionally invested in something that they do not know all of the facts. I get that it is hard to admit that perhaps people have been duped. That the media has the perfect storm of simultaneously wanting trump to go down and that everything they write about it or talk about drives their ratings to vastly increased revenue. It is their absolute dream. They get to try and tarnish trump (and he is unquestionably tarnishable) which they would do in any event, and they get record revenue at the same time. So they take a case like this meeting and they print a combination of truths, half truths, out of context statements, innuendo, and straight fabrications to create a narrative. That narrative is gobbled up by a lot of people. Then, when the actual facts of the meeting come out people refuse to admit it. No one wants to admit they were duped. People are rightly embarrassed that they invested so much faith in something that was built on bullshit speculation. Please explain, anyone, how this meeting (just this meeting) can be used to further the case for collusion/conspiracy. I realize that it is in the realm of slight possibility that one of the meeting participants could show up with a taped message of the meeting or that someone could suddenly recant their testimony and tell a different story and then all of them agree with that new story but the odds of any of that happening are less than 1%. As it stands right now, it is over for this meeting.
  5. Actually, only Nataliya provided written answers. jr, Rinat, Ike, the interpreter and Goldstone all testified live and were subject to questions and cross examination. Even you have to admit to certain realities. Of course, one person's testimony alone means very little. But we have testimony now from everyone in the meeting. They all said essentially the same thing. Of course there will be some minor differences (differences about who sat where or how long Kushner was in the meeting but nothing substantial) as you are getting testimony from people about a 30 minute meeting a year or so before. But on the main points, all the stories were the same. Just as I predicted, the response now is that all of them are lying. I think that is crazy but I suppose it is remotely possible. But even if we assume they might be lying, what do you have? No one else is in the meeting. It was not recorded. What are you or mueller going to do? You are the attorney. When you depose a group of people that were in a meeting and evey person in the meeting says the same thing, what do you do? You either believe them or you think they are all lying but you realize there isnt anything you can do to prove that. If you put all of those people on the stand the jury is going to believe them. Their stories are all the same. Bottom line, if their testimony is detrimental to your case you would not want them within a mile of the courthouse. Just speculate, lets just assume that no other information about this meeting exists, do you see any possible way that mueller, or anyone, could use this meeting to further a case for collusion/conspiracy? I do not. If you do, please elaborate.
  6. Uh...where did I ever indicate it wasnt written answers? I did read it. I suppose the next line from you dorks is that somehow the bumbling idiot trumps got every single person at the meeting, including an interpreter, to all make up the same lie and stick to it through multiple interviews.
  7. Well considering that the US Senate titled the document: "Testimony of NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary" You can take it up with those dupes.
  8. If this was directed at me, I think he should release the reports when they are finished. Bad or good, they should influence the political landscape.
  9. Sure. That would be a major problem. But asking Comey to go easy on Flynn and firing Comey is not enough imo. Rosenstein recommended Comey be fired and had discussions about the firing with Sessions well before Trump ever met with Comey. If there is evidence that trump fired comey and told sessions or rosenstein to stop the investigation then of course that would be obstruction. But trump fired comey and then rosenstein immediately announced the Mueller hiring.
  10. How about a couple of you read the pages? Jr, Rinat, nataliya, Kushner, the interpreter, Ike they all tell the exact same story. This whole episode was nothing. Yet it has consumed you guys for a year or more. Do any of you have any objectivity left at all? Can anyone read these transcripts and still believe that anything illegal/nefarious/conspirational/immoral/unethical or anything like that happened at this meeting? It is ridiculous. It is also kind of funny how the russians involved all talk about how the media stories about this and them are total fabrications. Can any of you just admit that the media played you in this particular case?
  11. I suggest you guys read Nataliya's testimony specifically and the supporting statements. You guys keep continually being duped by the media. There is nothing there at all. Never was. Based on Goldstone's email to Trump Jr the meeting was certainly worth investigating. But, like everything else so far, when it is actually vetted there is just nothing there. The media spins it all kinds of ways to keep the public frothing. You guys froth.
  12. Whatever. Never once have i suggested that an investigation was not appropriate. I stated many times that I supported Mueller's appointment and will accept whatever he finds. I have said that I would support impeachment if any of the following: 1) Collusion/conspiracy with russia 2) Firing mueller without a very good reason and only if a competent replacement was put in charge 3) money laundering 4) tax fraud etc. Just because I do not believe those things happened does not mean that they shouldn't be investigated. People post all kinds of speculation every day. Wild ass speculation. Just because I find holes in some of that speculation and present another side to it doesnt mean i am some trumpkin. I have my own theory on what has happened and, of course, I am going to argue for my opinion. Isnt that what this is supposed to be for? I am also not going to hide from my opinions. Opinions are not worth anything if they are not shared.
  13. Did not see the 3rd party part. My strong suspicion is that it was a grey area and the parties decided to blow up the deal as a result. The particulars of the entity bylaws are a far cry from bribery. But I will gladly concede that the attorneys may have missed something technical. But you are misrepresenting my point. I am not saying it is impossible for shady deals to get put together. I am talking about this articular deal. Do you think it is even remotely possible that the lawyers and bankers (and there would be several of each representing the buyer seller and debt holders) on this deal would not be aware of a huge commission being paid out to an unknown third party? If you agree with that, do you think there is even a remote chance that all of them collectively would agree to go forward anyway knowing the stakes involved? Cohen? Are you suggesting that Qatar and Glencore and the Bank of Singapore used Cohen? What does Cohen have to do with any of this? I suppose you are suggesting that Cohen did some sort of contract with Rosneft for Trump? You think they used lawyers and a paper trail for a bribe?
  14. The deal structure is not that unusual. Whenever you have multiple partners buying a stake in a company, it is almost always (99%) set up in a new entity. Glencore and Qatar would not want any of this particular investment to get comingled with their other assets. The legal structure of the deal is pretty typical. And Rosneft would have multiple divisions and entities in and of itself. In energy, virtually every new "deal" gets set up in a new entity. Each deal is separated from each other for liability reasons. But ultimately there is a holding company that controls all of the entities. Using the UK as the holding company is also common for deals in that part of the world. The govt/laws there are very stable as is the economy. There are also some tax reasons. As to the stock buy back, it is not uncommon at all for the selling party to have buy back provisions in the deal. They are typically pretty lucrative to the buyers and, as a result, are rarely acted on. But, just ask yourself, why in the world would anyone go to alll of that trouble just to hide a bribe payment? The companies involved spent hundreds of millions on bankers and lawyers to get the deal done. You think it makes sense to spend all of that money and time and effort and everything else just to hide a bribery payment? I mean that is just completely nonsensical. I looked at the chart you referenced. It is actually pretty comical in the "associations" the use to make it into trumps orbit. Wilbur Ross- Former Chairman of Cypress Bank with zero connection to this deal. Tillerson- Connected because Exxon made deals with Rosneft in 2012. Manafort- He knew russians? Carter Page- I see no connection whatsoever. Guilianni/Kushner etc- None of them have any direct connection to the deal at all and only have specious connections to unrelated people. The connections trying to be made are so thin they are silly.
  15. I have no illusions about Glencore. They do what every other major energy player does at times. I am not saying that, on their own, Glencore would not do something nefarious. I am saying not in a deal like this. It might be the tiniest bit possible if the entire deal was financed privately by Qatar and Glencore but it wasn't. Banks in singapore provided many billions in funding. Are we to assume that hte singapore bankers were also in on the bribe? I would think that the banks would like to get repaid on their loans. Openly entering into a situation involving bribing a US presidential candidate seems a bit risky for most banks. You think it is possible that the lawyers for the singapore banks were ok with the set up? When you loan someone billions you get to see every financial transaction.
  16. You are kind of making my point. Of course the bankers will try and get the deal done, that is their job. But they have massive liability if they obfuscated something as egregious as what people are alleging. But that is also why I included the lawyers. Your point above that even a tiny issue can derail a deal because the attorneys pour over every detail. Do you think that there is any way possible that the attorneys and bankers would not be aware if there were hundreds of millions of bribes being paid as part of the deal? You have to agree that they would have to know. Impossible that they would not. As an attorney, you know that you would have massive liability issues if you did not disclose completely the nature of those payments. You would probably quit the deal over something like that but, at a minimum, you would paper the transaction to cover your ass in every way possible. That is why these types of things are just so crazy. Somehow we are to believe that russians wanted to bribe trump to lift sanctions first (which is believable that they would want to do that) then they got Qatar and Glencore to go along with it then they got the Singapore bank to go along with it, then they got all of the outside i-bankers and lawyers to go along with it. Knowing full well that if anyone in the chain anywhere cracked, they could all go to jail at worst and definitely lose a ton of money at best and, probably most important, lose out on any chance to work with the US ever again or any of the US allies that the US told not to work with them. Essentially suicide. And they would risk all of that to bribe a guy that no one thought had any chance to win. If you guys step back from this you surely can see how this would never happen. Again, I would believe that Rosneft might bribe someone. I can believe that Glencore and Qatar could bribe someone. But there is just no way it could happen as part of a deal like the one that was done. Way too many moving parts and no way to keep the story straight. Carter Page!! Thats according tot eh dossier right? All of these people are going to risk professional ruin by trusting Carter Page. Come on.
  17. Lulz. I only know that I know more about these types of deals than you do, which was obvious with your stupid commissions/proceeds retort. I am very hopeful there are people on here with some experience also in this type of deal so that they can verify what I am saying.
  18. This is going to be pointless I am sure and I have no reason to think you have the capacity to actually understand it, but maybe others will. No one suggested the commissions had to come from the sales proceeds genius. What I am saying (and every banker and attorney will agree) is that if there was some commission to some unrelated 3rd party that it would have to be disclosed to the buyers. The attorneys and bankers for Glencore would never let Glencore close on the deal without knowing exactly what and who that commission was for. Zero chance. This is not some spy novel. Serious professionals were part of this transaction. banks put in billions of dollars. Qatar's investment arm put in billions. Glencore put in hundreds of millions. And for you guys to be correct, they all would have had to knowingly go along with the bribe to Carter fucking Page. The odds of getting found out are massive. It defies logic on every scale.
  19. I know you guys are ginned up over this Rosneft stuff but you need to be prepared for a big let down. I know it makes for fascinating speculation but reality still exists in the end. I won't go into all of the details but point out a few things. The deal that was struck between rosneft and Qatar/Glencore was agreed on sometime in January 2016, well before trump was a likely winner of anything. The due dilligence for this deal (especially considering that it was a private company with some govt ownership) would have been massive. Every asset of Rosneft, every contract, every piece of equipment etc. would be verified by the purchasers. That process would take 9-10 months at least and cost upwards of $30M. Alleging that in the middle of the due diligence where you have investment banks and lawyers up to their ears in work and fees, that the selling party offered a massive commission to someone that had no impact on the deal whatsoever is just plain crazy. It could not happen in any way. Further, you have a very well respected and spectacularly successful energy company in Glencore that is part of the deal and putting in $300M of its own money. Do you guys really think there is any way that Glencore is going to willingly go along with some sort of bribe/commission to trump et al? There is a 0% chance of that happening. Glencore would run from that as fast as they could. And Glencore, as part of the purchase, had access to every single dime from Rosneft and where it was going. Every dime. For you guys to be right, the investment bankers and attorneys for Glencore would have to just completely disregard $100Ms in fees going somewhere unknown. I am sure Glencore would be happy to buy into a company that was bribing a foreign govt. Even more so, they were apparently bribing the guy that, at the time, everyone in the world thought had a maybe 5% chance of actually winning. It is ridiculous on its face. Glencore would risk its entire investment, reputation and possible legal standing, to bribe trump? Before you guys rip me, this does not mean trump is clean. This is not a defense of trump. This is an attempt at basic thinking. Trump may well go down (I still very much doubt it) but it is possible. But the Rosneft angle is just ridiculous.
  20. Jesus. Most people not like you and Hugo and crew do not live this stuff 24/7. This guy had 1000 other things going in his life and I doubt he even remembered the email stuff at the end. And yea, i cant imagine why anyone would not want to die a slow and excruciatingly painful death by inoperable cancer.
  21. And we are done here.
  22. No one ever wins arguments on this topic. The reality is that Israel is going nowhere in any of our lifetimes. But it is beyond ridiculous to try and pin these latest deaths on the IDF. The riots have been going on for months. People have been getting killed for months. Israel has told the palestinians that anyone (man, woman, child) that tries to broach the barricades is going to get repelled. Every single Palestinian knows this. The whole episode is tragic. But letting kids anywhere near this is 100% on the parents and the leaders today. I also like the prison analogy. Did I miss something? Aren't 100% of the Palestinians free to go anywhere they want? Curious term.
  23. Well we were in college. I think we were afraid of getting kicked out. But isnt one of the hallmarks of college to come up with some overly elaborate scheme just to get free drinks?
  24. College cheap was the best. Went to a university that had casinos in a neighboring state that wasn’t too far away. My roommate and I would elaborately plan out our roulette wagers so that we would break even. We would go in and sit across from each other and mirror our bets so that we could get as many free drinks as possible. As I recall, table minimums were $2. Green killed us occasionally but it was always good for a 4-5 free drink head start on the evening. One night we were into our deal and the roulette guy figured out pretty easily what we were doing. He was cool though and just told us to sit next to each other and bet black and red so we didn’t have to keep track of all of the numbers.
×
×
  • Create New...