This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

U.S. Hires Company With K.G.B. Link to Guard Moscow Embassy

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

You know I sort of like seeing those "CoExist" bumper stickers with all the religious symbols. I think that is an admirable thought however when it comes to security at our embassy in Moscow? hiring basically KGB agents to do the job? Really? I mean Congress has nothing to say about this? Is there no oversight? Shall we just start hoisting the Russian Flag under ours on our flagpoles? Or over our flag? Good God, what in the world is going on?! This makes me sick to my stomach.

MOSCOW — When President Vladimir V. Putin in July ordered American diplomatic missions in Russia to slash their staff by 755 employees, the State Department said it would need time to assess the “impact of such a limitation and how we will respond to it.”

Part of that response has now become clear: To make up for the loss of security guards axed in the Russian-mandated staff cuts, Washington has hired a private Russian company that grew out of a security business co-founded by Mr. Putin’s former K.G.B. boss, an 82-year-old veteran spy who spent 25 years planting agents in Western security services and hunting down their operatives.

Under a $2.8 million no-bid contract awarded by the Office of Acquisitions in Washington, security guards at the American Embassy in Moscow and at consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok will be provided by Elite Security Holdings, a company closely linked to the former top K.G.B. figure, Viktor G. Budanov, a retired general who rose through the ranks to become head of Soviet counterintelligence.

A State Department official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the department’s rules, said that Elite Security and individuals associated with it had been “vetted” with “relevant national and local agencies” and would not increase the threat risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/world/europe/embassy-moscow-kgb.html

View user profile
Trump hires the best people! Just ask him!

This is kind of par for the course. Just look at who he got to help with his "Trump Ocean Club."

A new report from watchdog group Global Witness says that a Colombian money launderer currently in U.S. custody participated in the advance sale of units in a Panama development bearing the president’s name: The Trump Ocean Club. Trump has made $13.9 million from the Ocean Club in the last three years alone, according to NBC’s own reporting on the matter.

From the Global Witness report:

Trump may not have deliberately set out to facilitate criminal activity in his business dealings. But, as this Global Witness investigation shows, licensing his brand to the luxurious Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama aligned Trump’s financial interests with those of crooks looking to launder ill-gotten gains. Trump seems to have done little to nothing to prevent this. What is clear is that proceeds from Colombian cartels’ narcotics trafficking were laundered through the Trump Ocean Club and that Donald Trump was one of the beneficiaries.

David Murcia Guzmán is the Colombian fraudster who just completed a nine-year sentence in the US for money laundering that defrauded more than 200,000 people of $2 billion, according to the report. A Brazilian real estate salesman named Alexandre Ventura Noriega confirmed to Global Witness and NBC that Guzman participated in the pre-sale of Ocean Club units, purchasing as many as 10 of them in the period when the developers were trying to raise money to complete the project.

Global Witness cites Colombian authorities in connecting Guzman not only to drug trafficking through his enterprise DMG, but to the Colombian revolutionary group FARC, which is considered a terrorist organization by the US.

Colombian media coverage describes a police raid netting evidence that a member of rebel group Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionaria [de Colombia] (FARC) invested in DMG. Press reports also allege that Murcia Guzmán moved money for the paramilitary organization Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). At the time, both FARC and AUC were designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

This is what most of Trump's "businesses" are. He doesn't actually build much of anything -- he just licenses his name to foreign criminals (a lot of 'em Russians) who need to use "real estate business" to launder their money. Trump's happy to allow his name to be used for that purpose because he gets a percentage of it, and also has his name spread all over, which, due to his mental illness, is something he desperately wants to see.

Mueller's going to turn up some things that make collusion look like the least of it.

And millions of American voters let FOX News and talk radio con them into voting for a gangster. That's some stink that's not gonna wash off for quite some time.

View user profile
Mueller couldn't find wrong with the Russian bribes to the Clinton slushfund foundation surrounding uranium one sellout... so i wouldn't hold my breath. But maybe turn #impeachby? into #voteout2020?

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Mueller couldn't find wrong with the Russian bribes to the Clinton slushfund foundation surrounding uranium one sellout... so i wouldn't hold my breath. But maybe turn #impeachby? into #voteout2020?

I took you off ignore just for a second to settle a bet with myself about what your dumb, predictable ass would be saying... and I won it.  Smile

I think this has been explained to your stupid, stupid fucking ass almost as many times as "Fast And Furious" but you are apparently incapable of absorbing or retaining information.  Or maybe you just play stupid because you like the way it pisses off the grownups, I don't know.  In any case, let's not pretend you're objective about anything -- you made up your mind that Russia was "fake" long before the real evidence digging began.  Hence that dumb picture you've been using forever.  Whatever Mueller uncovers, your mind's already made up that Trump's innocent, just like no matter what evidence is uncovered, you've decided that Hillary and Obama are guilty.  You don't give a damn about truth.  You say shit, but your behavior says something else... and, I believe the behavior.  Facts and logic are not going to impinge on what you decided to believe, like a Scientologist clinging to thetan-theory.

Which is why you're a waste of time (and food, and oxygen) and I really don't know why anybody here still talks to you, when you couldn't reach their intellectual level if you had a trampoline.  Blocking you has improved the place immensely.  I fully endorse it.

Anyway, once again, just for the sake of any onlookers who enjoy seeing you get your stunted ass kicked, the reason Mueller couldn't find wrong with the Uranium One thing is because it's hogwash and has already been debunked a long time ago.  

If reading links is too hard, there's always video:



As far as voting out your hero (and, yeah, he is, or you wouldn't defend him so much) goes, I'm fairly certain you can take that as a given.  Him, and a lot of other right-wingers with him.  What happened earlier in the month was just the sneak preview for 2020.  That'll be coming at you in Technicolor and Sensurround before you know it.

Now, back to ignore for ya, Nazi bootlicker.


(edited because I found a video link I liked better)

View user profile
Did you know that collusion with the Russians wouldn't actually be illegal? Not even Hillary and the dnc buying the Russian dossier through intermediaries. The obstruction of justice accusation is just silly.

Trump (and Hillary/dnc) will not be charged. The best you'll get is some ancillary sacrifice.

What should be investigated is whether the dossier was the basis for search warrants. That could be big.

View user profile
And just for future reference, in case any other crank-head ever brings up "Uraniam One" and anybody wants to shoot 'em down real quick, I just found this:

https://twitter.com/NathanLerner/status/931593726765527041

Nate Lerner‏Verified account @NathanLerner

Uranium One story is so asinine it can be disproven in a tweet:

-10 other gov agencies that had no connection to Clinton's State Dept also had to approve Uranium One deal
-Clinton Foundation donor supposedly involved actually sold stake in company 3 years before deal took place

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Did you know that collusion with the Russians wouldn't actually be illegal? Not even Hillary and the dnc buying the Russian dossier through intermediaries. The obstruction of justice accusation is just silly.

Trump (and Hillary/dnc) will not be charged. The best you'll get is some ancillary sacrifice.

What should be investigated is whether the dossier was the basis for search warrants. That could be big.

The Steele dossier originated in Great Britain and was originally commissioned by Republicans (some accounts said a Republican candidate, unnamed, but the Washington Times has claimed credit.) Where do you get the idea that colluding with Russia in our election wouldn't be illegal? That's just stupid. And Trump has much more to worry about. It appears he's been laundering money, not only for Russian oligarchs, but others. Firing Comey was a bad move. Inviting the Russians to the White House and telling them about it was an even worse move.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Did you know that collusion with the Russians wouldn't actually be illegal? Not even Hillary and the dnc buying the Russian dossier through intermediaries. The obstruction of justice accusation is just silly.

Trump (and Hillary/dnc) will not be charged. The best you'll get is some ancillary sacrifice.

What should be investigated is whether the dossier was the basis for search warrants. That could be big.

The Steele dossier originated in Great Britain and was originally commissioned by Republicans (some accounts said a Republican candidate, unnamed, but the Washington Times has claimed credit.) Where do you get the idea that colluding with Russia in our election wouldn't be illegal?  That's just stupid.  And Trump has much more to worry about.  It appears he's been laundering money, not only for Russian oligarchs, but others.  Firing Comey was a bad move.  Inviting the Russians to the White House and telling them about it was an even worse move.  

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

But what precisely would constitute collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and have we actually seen evidence of it so far? We asked legal experts—former federal prosecutors, law professors and more—to help make sense of the situation based on the evidence that has been made public so far. Most were quick to note that collusion itself is not a specific federal crime—what matters is what kind of cooperation might have taken place and in what way. As to whether collusion did occur or a crime was committed, they said the jury is still out.

‘Stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality’ Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Did you know that collusion with the Russians wouldn't actually be illegal? Not even Hillary and the dnc buying the Russian dossier through intermediaries. The obstruction of justice accusation is just silly.

Trump (and Hillary/dnc) will not be charged. The best you'll get is some ancillary sacrifice.

What should be investigated is whether the dossier was the basis for search warrants. That could be big.

The Steele dossier originated in Great Britain and was originally commissioned by Republicans (some accounts said a Republican candidate, unnamed, but the Washington Times has claimed credit.) Where do you get the idea that colluding with Russia in our election wouldn't be illegal?  That's just stupid.  And Trump has much more to worry about.  It appears he's been laundering money, not only for Russian oligarchs, but others.  Firing Comey was a bad move.  Inviting the Russians to the White House and telling them about it was an even worse move.  

Pkr is a special kind of idiot.

"Collusion" isn't illegal if you're colluding with your neighbor to throw his wife a surprise party. What's illegal -- and treasonous -- is the Trump campaign colluding with a hostile foreign power to attempt to undermine America's democratic process. That's the part he's ignoring while he tries to play with the defintions of words.

Pkr's desperate to find some way around that because he doesn't want to think he's a moron who got fooled into supporting one of the biggest mistakes in American history. But he is, and he did. And it will only become more evident as this web comes apart.

As corrupt as the collusion is, the reasons behind it look worse.

And Trump's so stupid he brags about his Russian pay-offs because he thinks it makes him look like a good businessman. Dude's so mentally ill he can't even help bragging about criminal activity, thinking people are too stupid to spot it for what it is.

He did, however, grant one pointed exception: Maison de l’Amitie. “The closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach, Florida,” Trump told reporters. “I bought the house for $40 million and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million including commissions.”

Why did a Russian billionaire pay Trump so much money for a house the new owner is believed never to have set foot in, which he has denied owning, and which he now intends to tear down? The answer offers an important window into Trump’s kinship with Russia’s oligarchs, and what he likely sees in them as business allies. It is also a story of a classic Trump deal: a lucrative flip, figures on both sides that don’t really add up, and at the center, a house that may not have been what either party claimed.

If Trump makes it 'til 2020 it'll be because the investigation will take that long to uncover all the corruption. This is a very big iceberg.

View user profile
Semantics. Collusion is a broad term for what went on, although it's not a legal term. BFD. Did you even read your link?

View user profile
zsomething wrote:Pkr is a special kind of idiot.

Which is why it is a counterproductive and utterly futile activity to respond to his posts.

He's a fucking troll and if nobody responded to his provocative posts--if everyone ignored him--HE WOULD GO AWAY!

View user profile
House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy weighs in on the evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and wonders about whether the "Steele dossier" was used as evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associates during the 2016 campaign.

CHRIS WALLACE: Let's turn to the revelation this week that it turns out that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the opposition research that led to the writing, the formulation, of this Russian dossier that has made all kinds of accusations against President Trump and his campaign.

What do you think is the significance of that revelation?


GOWDY: Well, one of the areas of significance is just how hard the Democrats in Congress fault Republicans for trying to gain access to this information. If it were up to Adam Schiff and other Democrats, who, of course, want all the facts to come out, they want all the facts of Russia to come out, except who finance the dossier. So, that's the most important thing to me is how unserious the Democrats in the House have been about uncovering all of the facts.

I am interested in who paid for the dossier because that helps you understand motive and intent and whether or not you can rely on the document. I am much more interested in whether or not the Department of Justice and the FBI relied upon that dossier and initiating a counterintelligence investigation or in court findings. That is really important to me.

I don't expect the DNC to be objective. Almost by definition, opposition research is not objective. I do expect an entity represented by a blindfolded woman to be objective. And if they relied on that dossier and they didn't corroborate it or vet it, then we have a serious issue and that's the next thing that House Intel is trying to find out, is whether or not the U.S. government relied on it.

WALLACE: Yes. Let me ask you about that, because your -- what -- the two points you are making, and I agree, these are two very important questions. Did the FBI based its original investigation, at least in part of the dossier? And when you talk about court representations, that's the possibility that they use the dossier to convince a FISA court to allow the FBI to wiretap people in Trump world, Trump associates.

Do you have any evidence of that? I understand the investigation is just beginning.

GOWDY: Well, actually, the investigation is not just beginning. We've been trying for a long time to get the Department of Justice to give us access to this information, and frankly it took the speaker of the House this week to tell the department that we're not going away. You know, Chris, people don't like it when I say this, but it's actually true -- it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the Obama Department of Justice and the current Department of Justice in terms of transparency and their willingness to share information with Congress.

This is a really simple request. Did you rely on the dossier? And if so, did you vet it before you relied upon it? You can answer that in 30 seconds. But it's taken three months for the Department of Justice, and only recently have they agreed to give us the information.

So, the battle is not just with House Democrats. Unfortunately, it's also with the Department of Justice, the access of the information we need to wrap up this investigation.

WALLACE: What about the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, which paid $12 million for the law firm, Perkins Coie, that paid for the opposition research that led to the dossier, that in the FEC filings, it simply says $12 million to Perkins Coie, the law firm, for legal work? No mention of the fact that it was also paying for oppo research that went to Christopher Steele, former British intelligence agency -- agent that went to the Kremlin. Not the money to the Kremlin, but his investigation.

As I understand it, that willful misrepresentation of campaign expenditures is a criminal offense.

GOWDY: Well, I'm not an election law expert, Chris, but the good news is you don't have to be to understand the absurdity of believing that you can launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. I mean, imagine if you and I were running for Congress and we just hired a law firm and said, hey, you go to all the oppo, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go hire all the experts, and we're going to launder all of this through a law firm. I can't think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.

So, I am interested in that, and I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid $10 million to a law firm to do oppo research. I find that stunning. Ten million dollars and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it, who said, this is a really good idea?

So, you've got two issues, a memory issue, and then the lack of transparency by laundering money through a law firm.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum