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.

 

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

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
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)




posted on May, 13 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   

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.


What do you know!?? Nothing!!!! You're just making stuff up. If not, show us your evidence. I'm waiting. And not just another harebrained Anti-Trumper Conspiracy article or thread, but real evidence. Go on. You claim there's some big shell game going on. Prove it. Bet you can't!
edit on 13-5-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Serves Mueller right for using Shep Smith/Don Lemon/Rachel Maddow as sources for leads/evidence.


When you listen to obvious liars like those two, you are bound to get a whole lot wrong.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.


How does that work, exactly? ‘“Corporation! You are hereby accused of being non-existant between the date of xxxxx and the date of xxxxx. If you were, in fact, existing between those dates, have your human CEO report to US Special Counsel Mueller ASAP!”

SMH



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
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!
edit on 5142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

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!


That is exactly what the story says. You just chose to not read the response to the judges question.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Don't worry. They didnt.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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.


1)no he didnt. Did the judge find against him? No!
2) That's called defense. They're expected to.
3)no he didn't the judge asked about a subsidiary of the company.
Which turns out DID exist. Lol

But good try!



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. Sorry. Try again.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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)


It's possible the owner (a known chef) ran previous catering business through Concord Management and Consulting. Concord Catering as a legal entity came after.

Not a huge deal, but not a good look, either. Oops.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

When that's all ya got! Lol. When the world's hands you a ham. Get a can of beans!



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Don't worry. They didnt.


I admire your dedication to providing the baseline for Costanza Opposites for everyone else to benefit from.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Just no.

Its almost like seeing a corny clown put on an old timey show when you do this.

Maam. This is all over. The professionals who started this are eating crow and trying to save careers now after screwing up royally. They have no way out thanks to people like you who truly thought they were telling the truth.

I know you will not respond well to my post. I am an enemy to you and this subject is your enemy's story that you need to quiet up or shut down. No way we are right and you are wrong. No way......but..


edit on 5 14 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It is Now known that Concord Management and Consulting LLC was just a " Front " for


Wile E. Coyote Management and Consulting LLC , A Munitions Firm located somewhere in a Desert .........



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That's how money laundering works. Nothing Mueller hasn't dealt with in the past. This story sounds like a right wing blog making a mountain out of a mole hill. They believe the crook can get off on a technicality.

They think this proves something. They don't know what... only that it sounds like it must. Like the disgruntled judge in maniforts case. He railed but didn't find against Mueller. But they thought that was some kind of victory too. Crumbs are a banquet when that's all you have.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




Maam. This is all over. The professionals who started this are eating crow and trying to save careers now after screwing up royally. They have no way out thanks to people like you who truly thought they were telling the truth.


Applause



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. Sorry. Try again.
Yes, sorry, you are the one that needs to try again...
BOOM😄
No mod rules is fun!



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
He did the same thing with lots of Enron 'indictments'. It inflates the numbers and looks good. Only difference with Enron is it was not caught till a few SC decisions.

it is all bs.

Again, what is crazy, is that the Cohen/his family ties to the mob are ignored trying to take down Trump for collusion....yeah, great f'n investigation.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: xxspockyxx

Really?

Year two of the investigation begins.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

They will.







 
52
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join