• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller Indicted A Russian Company That Didn't Even Exist, Court Transcripts Say

jmotivator said:
Well, a) ad hominem, do you have issue with what they quoted? Also since when is biased sources not allowed? We should probably drop CNN, and NBC, and MSNBC then too, yeah?



We discuss was lawyers say here on a daily basis. Can I count on you to run to one of the various Avenatti/Stormy Daniels threads and warn everyone about what lawyers say? I bet not.



The Daily Wire isn't the only one reporting the conversation.

Look, it makes Mueller AGAIN appear horribly sloppy. It's like if I started a website called "Jmotivator Cooks!", didn't incorporate, and then after being suspected of committing a crime the DA indicted "Jmotivator Cooks!"
Click to expand...
The company has existed for over two decades. The lawyer is obviously playing semantics games. The SC didn't seem too concerned at all and egged the defense to bring their clients to the US.

Just move on.
 
MovingPictures said:
The company has existed for over two decades.
Click to expand...

Not based on the argument of the lawyers. Just because they have a website doesn't make them incorporated and a legal entity.

The lawyer is obviously playing semantics games. The SC didn't seem too concerned at all and egged the defense to bring their clients to the US.
Click to expand...

Semantics in a legal battle?! If we make words important in legal matters then what's next? Anarchy, tha's wut! :roll: :lamo

Just move on.
Click to expand...

I've been telling you guys that for a while.
 
jmotivator said:
Not based on the argument of the lawyers. Just because they have a website doesn't make them incorporated and a legal entity.
Click to expand...
Again, those are the arguments of the defense, the SC disagrees. Of course it really isn't the most wise argument on their part, as whether or not the company was a legal entity is beside the accusations, which are that those that owned the entity were funneling money to foreign criminals under the CONCORDE banner.
 
MovingPictures said:
Again, those are the arguments of the defense, the SC disagrees. Of course it really isn't the most wise argument on their part, as whether or not the company was a legal entity is beside the accusations, which are that those that owned the entity were funneling money to foreign criminals under the CONCORDE banner.
Click to expand...

Right, but the defense if representing the legal entities under the Concord umbrella. Do you assume they wouldn't defend Concord Catering if it actually existed as a legal, indictable entity?
 
It's actually a pretty easy riddle to solve. The prosecution just has to release their affidavit, which details what Concord Catering (and the other defendants) did, and other evidence that's the basis of the charges against them.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, a) ad hominem, do you have issue with what they quoted? Also since when is biased sources not allowed? We should probably drop CNN, and NBC, and MSNBC then too, yeah?



We discuss was lawyers say here on a daily basis. Can I count on you to run to one of the various Avenatti/Stormy Daniels threads and warn everyone about what lawyers say? I bet not.



The Daily Wire isn't the only one reporting the conversation.

Look, it makes Mueller AGAIN appear horribly sloppy. It's like if I started a website called "Jmotivator Cooks!", didn't incorporate, and then after being suspected of committing a crime the DA indicted "Jmotivator Cooks!"
Click to expand...

The lawyer was wrong. I already showed this.
 
jmotivator said:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30556/disaster-mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-ryan-saavedra

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier. "The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded. "And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government,"​

:shock: :lamo

Such a joke.
Click to expand...

That is funny.
And keep in mind, as far as Concord M&C LLC is concerned, Discovery ain't just a cable TV channel.
 
jmotivator said:
Right, but the defense if representing the legal entities under the Concord umbrella. Do you assume they wouldn't defend Concord Catering if it actually existed as a legal, indictable entity?
Click to expand...
Unless the goal was to get the marks to think the special counsel made a mistake so they could then use that to try to undermine the legitimacy of the Russian investigation in public perception.

And look! Here you are playing right into their hands! Almost like clockwork. So you create a thread for the distraction so the crux of the indictment, the active interference into the election by a foreign entity (and the payment of over $1.25 million by Concord to make it happen), fades into the background.

You couldn't have done a better job if you were on the payroll....
 
Cardinal said:
The lawyer was wrong. I already showed this.
Click to expand...

Did the company exist for the period covered in the idictment? The lawyer isn't saying it never existed, but that it didn't exist during the period covered in the indictment.

I'm assuming that period is sometime in 2016. The company may have been dissolved prior to that time period. Therefore, you haven't proven anything.
 
apdst said:
Did the company exist for the period covered in the idictment? The lawyer isn't saying it never existed, but that it didn't exist during the period covered in the indictment.

I'm assuming that period is sometime in 2016. The company may have been dissolved prior to that time period. Therefore, you haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...
Not that it matters at all, but Concord Catering is still active. You can go to their website from here (assuming there's only one Concord Catering big enough to have Bloomberg link to it): https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/1521687D:RU-concord-catering
 
It is absolutely stunning that anyone would come to the defense of any Russian or foreign entity that is actively pursuing the goal to sow discord and undermine the United States of America and our allies.
 
Parrish said:
It is absolutely stunning that anyone would come to the defense of any Russian or foreign entity that is actively pursuing the goal to sow discord and undermine the United States of America and our allies.
Click to expand...

True ... that would be stunning.
And yet when a political Party uses the same tactics to sow domestic discord, that Party seems to have may defenders.
 
bubbabgone said:
True ... that would be stunning.
And yet when a political Party uses the same tactics to sow domestic discord, that Party seems to have may defenders.
Click to expand...

The DOJ is a political party?
 
Parrish said:
It is absolutely stunning that anyone would come to the defense of any Russian or foreign entity that is actively pursuing the goal to sow discord and undermine the United States of America and our allies.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that you would defend what might be an illegal indictment. Wait...no I'm not.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes. I could see Americans squabbling over politics or political candidates. But to take the side of Putin's hackers, over American justice? And the hacking of our election process, at that?

:(
Click to expand...

To some here it's all a game. Scoring points or the perception of doing so is a source of great excitement for those who are unable or unwilling to conceptualize or process very real covert threats to American democracy.

Reality show devotees believe they'd found a way to live in their own reality show, with a real live television star of reality tv as their president. They've been told that they will have a chance to win fabulous gifts and prizes if they beat their opponent. Their opponent? Anyone who doesn't fit their definition of themselves. Putin and Russian are more like them than their fellow Americans with whom they disagree.
 
Fishking said:
Rofl...you just yawned at someone who indicted a fantasy. That's telling.
Click to expand...

1) You're taking the word of these lawyers as proof the company, that multiple sources have said existed as far back as 1996, didn't exist. The lawyers represent Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, which means they're representing a U.S. based company. It could be that Concord Catering has no U.S. presence, which would make sense that the U.S. lawyers can find no evidence of this company existing as a U.S. entity. Or it's a DBA. That's different than asserting the company does not exist anywhere in any form.

2) Whether Concord Catering exists as a separate entity is entirely irrelevant to the indictment, which refers to the two Concord entities collectively as a single entity, "CONCORD," for purposes of the discussion. So any discussion related to Concord Management and Consulting, LLC applies to Concord Catering and vice versa. In other words there are no unique charges leveled at Concord Catering that don't also apply to Concord Management and Consulting, LLC.
 
I'll wait for the results of discovery here. Should be fun.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Unless the goal was to get the marks to think the special counsel made a mistake so they could then use that to try to undermine the legitimacy of the Russian investigation in public perception.

And look! Here you are playing right into their hands! Almost like clockwork. So you create a thread for the distraction so the crux of the indictment, the active interference into the election by a foreign entity (and the payment of over $1.25 million by Concord to make it happen), fades into the background.

You couldn't have done a better job if you were on the payroll....
Click to expand...

Sigh. If the Mueller team has documentation of the incorporation documentation for the defendant then I'm sure they will provide them.

In the mean time, you have put your trust in an investigation that has claimed more investigator scalps than it created guilty pleas that was fueled by a dossier built on rumors gathered from Russian officials.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, a) ad hominem, do you have issue with what they quoted? Also since when is biased sources not allowed? We should probably drop CNN, and NBC, and MSNBC then too, yeah?

We discuss was lawyers say here on a daily basis. Can I count on you to run to one of the various Avenatti/Stormy Daniels threads and warn everyone about what lawyers say? I bet not.

The Daily Wire isn't the only one reporting the conversation.

Look, it makes Mueller AGAIN appear horribly sloppy. It's like if I started a website called "Jmotivator Cooks!", didn't incorporate, and then after being suspected of committing a crime the DA indicted "Jmotivator Cooks!"
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be like if you had a company called Jmotivator Consulting LLC, and another DBA called Jmotivator cooks, but that you're lied to the world for decades exists as a separate entity, including on your main website, and the DA then indicted you individually and your two known businesses, but at all times referring to Jmotivator Consulting LLC and Jmotivator Cooks! collectively as "JMOTIVATOR." Point is whether or not Jmotivator Cooks! exists as a separate legal entity is irrelevant to you or the indictment because the government doesn't allege any crimes by Jmotivator Cooks! that don't also apply to Jmotivator Consulting LLC.
 
apdst said:
Did the company exist for the period covered in the idictment? The lawyer isn't saying it never existed, but that it didn't exist during the period covered in the indictment.

I'm assuming that period is sometime in 2016. The company may have been dissolved prior to that time period. Therefore, you haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...

Yes.

....
 
jmotivator said:
You have the Russian incorporation documentation?
Click to expand...

Contrary to the thread title and the lawyer’s claim, Concord Catering existed at the time that Russia interfered in our election. Since you’re attempting to create entirely new goal posts, I suggest you start a new thread. This one has failed.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes.

....
Click to expand...

You haven't proven that.

I doubt a lawyer would tell a judge that the company didn't exist. It's too easy for the prosecution to say, "um...yeah it did".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom