Urine Trouble (Mueller Thread v. 16)

[SBJJ]

1. If those ranking agencies aren't legit, why are they the ones referenced in journalism about charities? Why is the ranking system you're pushing more legitimate?

2. What do you mean that it disappeared? It appears to still be active.

3. Can you repost those links?

1. Those agencies give crap ratings to some of the best charities. The outfit u posted refused to even rate the foundation because the way they do their financials it's impossible to gauge where the money goes until pressure was applied

2. Come on man. It's a shell now. The CGI shut down and the foundation is a ghost town of a charity. Again, why did the donations dry up while other charities donations have increased?

3. It's not a big thread. Go look for yourself. And a heads up. Program EXPENSES does not equal money going to the people in need

 

[Lead]

Mod Note: Please reference other similar issues/investigations in context/comparison to this current one to avoid getting too far off topic. It's understandable to draw from other events but it can become derailing if you are only talking about the supposed example and not the topic any longer.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

lol I didn't know where to put this. Fire and Fury has just been translated into Farsi.

That's the Ayatollah having a lot of his questions answered.

 

[Trotsky]

lol I didn't know where to put this. Fire and Fury has just been translated into Farsi.

That's the Ayatollah having a lot of his questions answered.

My Allah, he did what in a Russian hotel room?!

 

[Trotsky]

U really think those rating agencies are legit? Look at their ratings of some of the TOP well known charities. It's a joke

1. Those agencies give crap ratings to some of the best charities.

Good lord, your shilling and apologetics have reached incredible heights.

Being "well known" does not make you an efficient or honorable charity: in fact, a lot of the times there seems to be a negative correlation, since the most "well known" are so because they allocate so much donor money to fundraising and publicity.

Furthermore, they provide reasons for their ratings, so while an argument that they are not hard enough on a certain organization (such as the Clinton Foundation) may well be reasonable if you can provide comparative data, saying that they are too hard on "TOP" charities when they provide their metrics is absurd and stupid. They know more than you, and they are sharing their superior knowledge FFS.

 

[bobgeese]

My God, just when you think Meuller couldn’t have a worse week, this comes out. Basically, the company he indicted didn’t even exist at the time they claim.








LOLOLOLOLOLLLLL

 

[HereticBD]

lol I didn't know where to put this. Fire and Fury has just been translated into Farsi.

That's the Ayatollah having a lot of his questions answered.

Is it just me, or is that guy's thumb really odd looking?

 

[Darkballs]

My God, just when you think Meuller couldn’t have a worse week, this comes out. Basically, the company he indicted didn’t even exist at the time they claim.








LOLOLOLOLOLLLLL

They created a subsidiary and tried to get tried to get the judge to dismiss on the ground that the wrong party was charged. This isn't novel and something that every defendant will try. Why not? If you convince the court the wrong party is at suit, it's over. Regardless, there is evidence that Concord Catering existed prior to their attorney's statements, and evidence that they are still operating now. If you don't think Mueller will be able to blow up their corporate fiction and sue the correct entity, give it another week.

But by all means, keep up the spin that another Russian company being tied to the trump administration for making illegal payments is actually bad news for Mueller.

 

[bobgeese]

They created a subsidiary and tried to get tried to get the judge to dismiss on the ground that the wrong party was charged. This isn't novel and something that every defendant will try. Why not? If you convince the court the wrong party is at suit, it's over. Regardless, there is evidence that Concord Catering existed prior to their attorney's statements, and evidence that they are still operating now. If you don't think Mueller will be able to blow up their corporate fiction and sue the correct entity, give it another week.

But by all means, keep up the spin that another Russian company being tied to the trump administration for making illegal payments is actually bad news for Mueller.

Absolute haLOL at you and the folks who liked your post.

This isn’t me spinning, this is the actual court transcript. Your post above is an attempt at spinning.



But please, keep thinking Trump is going down. It gives your tears that extra salty flavor I enjoy so much.

 

[Darkballs]

This isn’t me spinning, this is the actual court transcript. Your post above is an attempt at spinning.

Well it's a twitter post quoting a reporter who was transcribing a closed court session. And yeah, referring to a motion by the defense that the prosecution failed to name the appropriate party (an extremely common motion in the US) as "mueller named the wrong business, lololololol," shows either a complete lack of understanding of the US court system or an intentional misrepresentation. It would be the equivalent of titling a thread "Mueller doesn't know what court to go to," because the defendant filed for a change of venue.

I understand that your a troll who's trying to detract from more criminal charges filed against people close to the trump administration, by going after the prosecution here is just stupid. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you just posted this without reading it though. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[bobgeese]

Well it's a twitter post quoting a reporter who was transcribing a closed court session. And yeah, referring to a motion by the defense that the prosecution failed to name the appropriate party (an extremely common motion in the US) as "mueller named the wrong business, lololololol," shows either a complete lack of understanding of the US court system or an intentional misrepresentation. It would be the equivalent of titling a thread "Mueller doesn't know what court to go to," because the defendant filed for a change of venue.

I understand that your a troll who's trying to detract from more criminal charges filed against people close to the trump administration, by going after the prosecution here is just stupid. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you just posted this without reading it though. Wouldn't be the first time.

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity at the time period alleged by the government”


This is the quote. Please provide evidence that contradicts this.

 

[Strychnine]

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity at the time period alleged by the government”


This is the quote. Please provide evidence that contradicts this.

So,

Does this mean that the Mueller investigation is invalid because a company under investigation wasn't "legal" at the time it was being investigated?

 

[bobgeese]

So,

Does this mean that the Mueller investigation is invalid because a company under investigation wasn't "legal" at the time it was being investigated?

Who said the investigation is invalid?

 

[Strychnine]

Who said the investigation is invalid?

No one.

I want to hear what you think.

 

[Fawlty]

Who said the investigation is invalid?

Yo. Geeseman. We all bite too hard on things that fit our bias now and then. It's okay, it's human. We just admit it and move on, lesson learned.

 

[bobgeese]

Yo. Geeseman. We all bite too hard on things that fit our bias now and then. It's okay, it's human. We just admit it and move on, lesson learned.

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity at the time period alleged by the government”


This is the quote. Please provide evidence that contradicts this.

 

[bobgeese]

No one.

I want to hear what you think.

I’m glad dirtbags like Manafort might pay their dues.

However, the emerging evidence of wrongdoing by members of the obama administration is about the biggest scandal in my lifetime. And before you call it a conspiracy theory, look at how many people have been fired or demoted already, and the recent reporting that the upcoming IG report is worse than people expected.

 

[Darkballs]

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity at the time period alleged by the government”


This is the quote. Please provide evidence that contradicts this.

There are some conversations with you that make it too plain that english isn't your first language.

Corporations are rarely single monolithic entities. They have subsidiaries, alter-ego's, co-owners, etc. The legal issue being discussed in your source is whether or not Concord Catering (who was charged by the prosecution) was sufficiently "owned" and "controlled" by Concord Management and Consulting (the parent company the defense alleges actually broke the law) within the meaning of US law, so as to be viewed as the same corporate entity. The defense filed a motion claiming they are not, on the argument that Concord Catering did not exist at the time the prosecution alleges. The prosecution contests this and has offered evidence of Concord Catering having been established since at least 1996 (which would refute the defense's claim).

The defense's motion to dismiss is completely normal. It happens all the time. Any criminal defense attorney would make that argument, whether it has merit or not, and would almost be guilty of malpractice if he DIDN'T make such an objection. If anything, it's required to object just to get it on record in case you need it on a point of appeal, which might be years later. This is basic 1st-year law school stuff, and you clearly don't understand it, or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

You let me know if the judge decides to dismiss due to an improper party being named. And hold your breath while you wait for him to do so.

 

[Fawlty]

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity at the time period alleged by the government”


This is the quote. Please provide evidence that contradicts this.

If you took the bet offered by Darkballs above this post, would expect to have a better than 5% chance of winning it?

How about I make an assertion that I clearly don't understand, and then demand that you refute it because on its surface, it conforms to my bias. Does that sound fun? We could even ask an expert, who I would ignore. Good times.

 

[bobgeese]

The prosecution contests this and has offered evidence of Concord Catering having been established since at least 1996 (which would refute the defense's claim).

I’m very willing to believe you if you can present this evidence.