It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have evidence that it did not exist? There is a tangled web of shell companies registered in several countries under investigation. There are a lot of deliberately confusing details involved.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
Do you not understand that the burden of proof lies on the accuser?
Yes. You have accused Concord Catering of being non-existent at the time. The OP is about a minor glitch.in a vast investigation. But enjoy building that huge mountain out of this mole hill.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
Funny that's not what the story says.
Judge asked if the defense lawyer was representing a subsidiary of the other company. That's all.
This is pretty pathetic this is all you got this week?
No special phony reports? Just the judge asked about a subsidiary?
How does that go Foxy? Tick tock?
LOL
Investigation entered year two today!
originally posted by: carewemust
That's 3 strikes against Mueller in just one week!
1. Judge T.S. Ellis says Mueller is full of sh$t.
2. Russian Companies catch Mueller with his pants down, by forcing him to prove they affected the 2016 election.
3. Mueller Indicts a non-existent Russian company.
But Mueller is upstanding, sharp, on his toes, and sports impeccable credentials, according to the liberal media turds.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: nataylor
There are also many mentions of events done by concord catering in the russian media. But that doesn't prove, nor disprove what the lawyer has contended. Did this specific concord catering exist during the election? Would have to see their articles of incorporation (or whatever that is in russia)
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Don't worry. They didnt.