Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    I am aware of a deal worth over $1.5 billion that failed ONLY because a third party showed up at the courthouse to raise a ridiculously obvious point -- the "entity" that was leading the transaction was not a type of entity legally permitted to undertake the act at issue.  It was a glaring and simple failure.  And by raising and proving that issue, a multi-billion dollar deal was sunk.  In the matter of a one-day proceeding, it was all over.

    You know who was utterly on board with the deal (because they were set to make several hundred million when it closed)?  An investment bank that everyone her knows by name.

    I can tell you from direct, first-hand experience that big-time players DO pull shit that is patently illegal and impermissible, and purposefully look the other way as to HUGE omissions because (1) they make hundreds of millions on such deals, upon closing, and (2) it's only a problem if someone OUTSIDE the transaction is (a) privy to the details and (b) savvy enough to throw up roadblocks.  Otherwise, they quite often follow the first law of finance: everything's legal unless you get caught.

    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.

  2. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    You've made it quite clear that you think you know more about large deals than anyone around here, and you're so fucking sure of it you're a dick about it to boot.  What I am 100% sure of is that you haven't a fucking clue how deals between giant Russian petro companies, middle eastern parties, and US elected officials work, so cool it with the condescension.

    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.

  3. 4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Nice try.  Who says the broker commission came from the sales proceeds?

    Next.

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. 30 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Sounds like an orgy of “evidence.” The note and the insurance papers laid out is just fucking weird.

    More importantly, If he was dying of cancer anyway why kill yourself for the life insurance money? Ain’t no cancer exclusion. Needed to pay for that upcoming vacation soon?

    Looks to me like someone might have hired the “B” team. 

    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.  

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 3 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

    Israel is under no danger whatsoever, more reason to not massacre unarmed people. It's an overreaction which racists/Evangelicals etc. love though so it's a popular deal among some segments here. 

    And we are done here.

  7. 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.

    • Like 1
  8. On 5/12/2018 at 9:56 PM, Baboontyme said:

    This is great. I love that you guys came up with some complicated algorithm of who bets which numbers when to "fool" the system when you could have just run the obvious red/black as the dealer suggested from the jump and no one would have cared. 

    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?

    • Like 1
  9. 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. 

  10. 59 minutes ago, Bone3421 said:

    Lol at the literal people....i am far from smug i just like being unyielding sometimes

    Its good ole fun...i can get all the same info from google but this is entertaining

    But getting boring since nobody wants to talk about anything...like why do i read that odds go down .05% per seat the closer you move to first base

     

    To keep the BJ thought going you are doubling down on stupid.  Hitting on a 16 when the dealer shows a 6 is a dumb play and people doing that will likely lose money in the long term.  A person doing that next to you does not change your odds.

    The odds getting better the farther away from the first seat is only true if you are counting.  If not, no change.

    • Like 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

    For the sake of argument let's assume all the criticisms of the deal as it stood until yesterday are true (I don't know that that's the case; there are arguments on both sides). That still leaves the question of what replaces the deal. In other words, how does exiting the deal improve our position? We are now negotiating from a much weaker position than we were when the deal was made, so there's no way in hell we can come close to that deal, much less improve it. For those of you saying the withdrawal was a good move, what is the next step?

    It depends on what happens.  The US puts sanctions back on Iran.  We have little to no trade with Iran so it does not mean much by itself.  But maybe other countries will have to decide if they want to stay in the good graces of the US or Iran?  It is a complex thing.  I am not saying it is a good strategy or the right strategy, but the US has tremendous power to influence others.  

    Plus, Israel is still the wild card.  IMO (and it is only an opinion) I think the leaders of Iran are scared to death of Israel.  They will never, ever admit that, but I believe that it is true.  I also believe that the leaders of the rest of the world do not want Israel bombing Iran facilities.  The deal that was done put Israel in a tough spot as they could not really do anything to Iran after the deal was put in place.  By the US dropping out, Israel becomes a wild card once again.  

    It is possible that those 2 things will force the rest of the world to renegotiate a deal with Iran that has actual teeth.  Again, just an opinion.

    • Like 1
  12. The Prince stuff is great.  As I have said, I do not think Prince will get accused of doing anything by Mueller.  

    But the fun side is that the supposed reason for the meeting with russians was to set up a back channel.  Which is interesting for a lot of reasons.  I thought it was Kushner that had the back channel communications?  And before that Flynn?  And before that Manafort?  And before that Carter Page?  Or was it the meeting with Nataliya?  What about the russian mob?   What about whoever trump colluded with in the election?  I mean, surely there is a back channel communication established already?  But maybe not.  Maybe it made sense to the russians to try and get a back channel through a guy that is not even in the admin.  And a billionaire that they could surely blackmail for......?  And, since the whole point of setting up back channels is to avoid detection, they thought it would be wise to get as many people involved in the process as possible.  

    • Fuck You 1
  13. 23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

     

    Now we can't do a thing. At least we had IAEA inspectors on the ground. 

    I have also like reading about this line of thinking.  Yesterday we had inspectors on the ground that Iran obviously knew about so people asked about the sites that were not eligible to be inspected and the retort was we will know from our IC.  Today, we, apparently, have no inspectors on the ground, but, even more amazing, our IC can longer do anything apparently.  Yesterday our IC was so good that it did not matter that we did not have access to certain sites.  Today, our IC is so bad that they we have no way of knowing anything at all.  

  14. 19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    See, this is the danger of not having any idea of what things mean but being certain that you do. You read that Iran can have low-enriched uranium and think that's an indictment of the nuclear deal, because you don't understand that nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium. Things like this would be valuable to know when negotiating a nuclear deal. Pompeo fucked up Kim Jong Un's surname, and Trump is functionally illiterate. But you trust this band of grifter idiots to do a better job than Obama's team did with the JCPOA.

    In other news, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Arizona for sale that can be yours if you act today! 

    The irony of this post is spectacular.  Calling someone out for not understanding something and then posting something that you clearly have no understanding of.  How do you think low-enriched uranium becomes highly enriched genius?   

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  15. 5 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

     Contracts require consideration for both sides.  It doesn't matter the language of the contract, if one side doesn't provide consideration, the contract is technically in breech and the other side has the right exit the contract and sue.  The people at Novartis are fucking stupid if they are telling the truth. I think the simpler explanation is they are lying now that this has come to light.

    It depends totally on the language of the contract.  Companies enter into bad contracts all of the time.  The contract could have been written that Cohen would meet a certain number of times throughout the year and offer his opinion on stuff.  If Novartis decided after the first meeting that Cohen's opinion was stupid, they still had to honor the contract as long as Cohen kept agreeing to show up as agreed.

    Sounds like Cohen just did a sales job on Novartis.

    I am curious though as to what you guys think Novartis was paying for?  Or what they got?  Direct access to Trump?  Inside info?

  16. 9 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Nobody is saying that.  But he sure as shit could buy Cohen's assistance on Net Neutrality for 200k.  Call it a commission.  Cohen was in the lead on RNC fundraising.  That gave him some ability to work as middleman with Congressmen on the issue.  He doesn't need all the Congressmen, just the leaders, like Paul Ryan.  Cohen had his office raided on April 9th.  Ryan announced his retirement on April 11. 

    So what is illegal?  Are you claiming that ATT buying Cohen's assistance is illegal?  Is working as a middleman illegal?  

    You seem to be implying that Cohen was illegally getting foreign money or dirty money into the RNC.  Super.  I hope they catch him on that and put him in jail.

  17. 5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Sure.  Do you think anybody believes that people were buying his insights into Trump?  Do you think he will be able to show that he provided any insights into Trump?  Do you think he prepared a 58 page report on his insights?

    BUT ...

    I'm not sure it will matter.  I suspect that the documents will tell a story.  I suspect that $4.4 MM wasn't for Cohen, and I suspect there are phone taps and documents which talk about what the money was for.  And I suspect that entities like AT&T will ultimately decide to come clean.

    I am not sure he has to legally.  If he met with them, had calls with them, set up meetings for them then he can claim he did his job.  Or, ATT can sue him and ask for their money back.

    Of course it could be something else.  I have a hard time believing that ATT willingly gave money to Cohen to set up a slush fund to fix things for Trump.  I have already said I think Cohen is shady and there very well may be some incriminating stuff in his files.  We shall see.

  18. Look I think Cohen is shady as fuck.  I hope he gets nailed if he actually committed a crime.  From what has been reported, I have not seen a crime yet.  Shady dealings for sure.

    But if Cohen pimped himself as a consultant with insights into Trump and people paid him for it, then I do not think he did anything illegal.

    It is pretty hilarious that people think ATT could "buy" net neutrality for a few hundred grand.  Trump was vocally against it from the campaign trail.  

    Also, this is a great site https://www.publicintegrity.org/.   Go there and search for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump etc.  You will find reams of stories about bundlers and corps and friends of every one of them that got plum govt jobs, multi million dollar contracts, loans etc.  This is nothing new.  It is shady and bad, but not new.

    I have stated many, many times that it is impossible to get money out of politics.  Impossible.  The way to fix the problem is having strictly termed people that never run for reelection.

  19. First, this is the problem with any POTUS entering into such a dramatic deal without congressional approval.  Because if we let one guy do it, then we do not have a choice if the next guy wants to undo it.

    The original deal was terrible.  IMO, it was the epitome of political grandstanding which actually made the situation worse.  The Iranians said they only coveted nuclear capabilities for energy, yet, the recent report by Israel makes it abundantly clear that they want nuclear military capabilities.  

    The 2 biggest problems with the original deal are 1) the timelines and, 2) the access. 

    Obama has openly admitted that this deal gives Iran the capability to have advanced enough centrifuges that they could enrich uranium to military grade in a number of days.  Certainly in a shorter time than any inspections could stop it.  Why would we agree to a deal that lets the Iranians have the advanced centrifuges?  They are completely unnecessary for energy production.  It was an absolute horrible part of the deal and the one that, essentially, makes the deal worthless from a practical standpoint.  A whopping 10 or so years Iran has to wait to get everything they wanted and we released 100s of billions to them.  Literally, the deal from Iran's prospective was- we get 100s of billions in cash, we get trade sanctions lifted, we get advanced centrifuges, we get limited inspection and, if we wait a whole 10 years, we get the ability to enrich military grade uranium in a matter of days.  That is the deal of century for Iran.  Again, purely political grandstanding.

    The access is equally as bad.  Iran was in bad, bad shape financially and politically.  Bad shape.  They HAD to make a deal.  Yet, we did not demand unfettered access to their potential sites.  It is baffling why we would do that.  It is like Aggy facing the death penalty for football recruiting violations and Texas agreeing to let them off the hook if we get to inspect their recruiting of punters only.  

    I am hopeful that the advanced centrifuges and access issues can be renegotiated in a new deal.  We shall see.

    • Like 7
  20. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    What sucks about this is there is no counter propaganda operation.  There are no well orchestrated and coordinated pro Robert Mueller, pro-Rosenstein, pro-DOJ/FBI public relations operations because these institutions are by their very mission, apolitical.

    That’s why what Trump is doing is so dangerous and people like Tahoe just stand there in silence while the very institutions that protect us from tyranny are being dismantled by his team.

    It’s sickening.

    Every once in a while Hugo's true nature peeks out.

    It is funny that Politico (which is rated as liberal) is now a propaganda arm for Trump.  This was just an opinion piece (one I do not personally agree with very much).  There is probably a 50-1 ratio of opinion pieces that are against Trump.  

    When you guys use words like tyranny, you are just making total fools of yourselves.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 5
  21. 5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Wrong.  The question is if the payments were of value to the campaign.  If they were . . . and they CLEARLY were . . . then they constitute campaign finance law violations because of the amount.

    That is not technically correct.  First, the campaign had to know about the contribution and "accept" it.  Or, they have to make the case that Cohen was an active agent of the campaign.  Both will be very hard to prove, IMO.  But it is not a slam dunk.

    They can also try and make a case that by Trump reimbursing Cohen that that act constituted the acceptance of the payment for the benefit of the campaign.  The whole episode is shady but proving it to be illegal will be difficult.  And, even if they prove it somehow, the only real penalty is to retroactively declare it and account for it and, possibly, return it.

  22. 6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    But are there other records?  Records that either support the Trump narrative or contradict it?  Are there, for example, records of $130K in bogus billings from Trump Org to Trump campaign?

    So your theory is that back during the final weeks of the campaign that Cohen paid stormy $130K and then the trump org billed the trump campaign an equivalent amount of money ($130K).  And then Trump funneled the money back to Cohen in $35K monthly installments after the fact?  I suppose that is possible with this crew but I doubt it.   

    • Fuck You 1
  23. 8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Your guess may be as good as mine.  But I can tell you that there will be records.  And the records will tell a compelling story.  Cohen will have received a special $130K or not.  It will have come from the campaign or from Trump (or no payment). 

     

    Trump's team may be able to spin uncomfortable facts, but I doubt it.  The problem for both sides is that there will be lots of paper trails.  The problem for Trump is that he won't be able to fix the facts.  The problem for Mueller is that explaining how this hotel bill which was signed by a hotel accountant who said he was told by his boss ... takes some good lawyering when pitted against a spinmaster.

    Your first paragraph is my whole point.  I believe that there are records showing $35K monthly retainer payments to Cohen from trump that started sometime after the election.  IMO, that is why Guillani talked about it.  Their position is going to be that Cohen made the initial payment to Stormy without Trump's knowledge and without the campaign's knowledge.  Trump and Cohen will try and say it was just a retainer for legal work and not connected to the Stormy payout.  I think that is bs but I do not think that even if they now admit that it was essentially reimbursement for the payout that it was illegal.  That was Guilliani's point.  

  24. 5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    1 -- they are plenty good for the base.  The base is rock-solid loyal to Trump.

    2 -- that base controls the GOP primary in most GOP districts/states.

    3 -- any betrayal of the GodKing Trump will be punished by the base, meaning loss of primary etc.

    4 -- GOP Congress knows this.

     

    Conclusion: so long as Team Trump keeps their base on their side, they are bulletproof, because GOP leadership will never buck the Trumpkin base.  The base is the only audience that matters.  And that base has proven time and time again that they'll happily lap up whatever lies Team Trump feeds them, so long as those lies validate their position of worship of Trump.  

    Trump's winning with the only group that matters.

    Which means that he'll win the whole fucking thing.

    That's what happens when you turn over control of your country to the 30-40% who are morons/psychopaths, and a spineless GOP leadership who gave them that control.  It's our destiny.  Drink it up.

    Your capacity to post the same thing over and over and over is impressive.

    My take on the payments is that Cohen paid stormy off.  I would guess that Trump knew but I think it will be impossible to prove that he knew or it will be a semantics game- Trump to Cohen "just deal with it" but I dont need to know the details.  In that scenario, Trump can truthfully state that he did not know that a payment was made.  

    My guess is that Guiliiani saw that there were retainer fees to Cohen from Trump and made the assumption that Mueller/Press/Public would interpret those retainer fees as reimbursement for Stormy so he decided to just go public with it because there wasn't anything illegal about it (assuming the payments were, in fact, from cohen personally and not the campaign).

    Obviously, if Cohen used campaign funds or was reimbursed from the campaign then there is trouble with FEC violations.  Pretty sure the violations would be civil but who knows.

    The problem with the line of thinking that Cohen used campaign funds to pay Stormy or that the campaign paid Cohen back is that we already have the story out there about the retainer fees from Trump.  If the campaign paid for the hush money or immediately reimbursed Cohen as some are suggesting, then why are there retainer fees to Cohen now?

    My guess is that Cohen made the payments from his own pocket.  My guess is that when cohen initially said he was not reimbursed for the payment by trump or the campaign he could technically be correct.  Trump can say he put him on retainer for legal advice.  Of course it sounds sketchy and very well may be but I do not think it is illegal.

×
×
  • Create New...