HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Malcolm Nance says if it ...

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:06 PM

Malcolm Nance says if it were him, he would cop a plea.


Malcolm Nance tonight on All In With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, discussing the Steele dossier:


"There's one interesting point about what Trump said, you know calling him [Comey] up and saying you know, "It's not me and hookers", but he never ... I mean this thing alleged that there was a $19 billion dollar payoff if Russian sanctions are lifted in there. It alleges that Trump administration people said that they would conduct surveillance against Russian oligarchs in the United States for the Russian government

There are many things in that dossier that, if I took one look at it, I would be just swearing to God I didn't do any of that, and copping to the hookers."

30 replies, 7540 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Malcolm Nance says if it were him, he would cop a plea. (Original post)
Tactical Peek Jun 2017 OP
Warren DeMontague Jun 2017 #1
DeminPennswoods Jun 2017 #3
Warren DeMontague Jun 2017 #4
DeminPennswoods Jun 2017 #6
Warren DeMontague Jun 2017 #8
pnwmom Jun 2017 #20
pnwmom Jun 2017 #21
Warren DeMontague Jun 2017 #23
pnwmom Jun 2017 #24
Warren DeMontague Jun 2017 #25
dem4decades Jun 2017 #2
DeminPennswoods Jun 2017 #5
WinkyDink Jun 2017 #7
Tactical Peek Jun 2017 #13
WinkyDink Jun 2017 #30
greyl Jun 2017 #22
Name removed Jun 2017 #9
rzemanfl Jun 2017 #10
TexasTowelie Jun 2017 #11
rzemanfl Jun 2017 #16
greatauntoftriplets Jun 2017 #18
rzemanfl Jun 2017 #19
fleabiscuit Jun 2017 #12
Name removed Jun 2017 #15
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2017 #14
Thinkingabout Jun 2017 #17
FreepFryer Jun 2017 #26
pnwest Jun 2017 #27
OnDoutside Jun 2017 #28
KT2000 Jun 2017 #29

Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:09 PM

1. How would you, hypothetically say, hide 19.5% of Rosneft?

I doubt it's possible; not with FINCEN authorized to look into this stuff.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/treasury-department-fincen-turn-over-financial-records-trump-financial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:13 PM

3. FinCEN doesn't really look into things,

they just collect suspicious transactions in a database. It's up to law enforcement to put the data to use in investigations and prosecutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:14 PM

4. Sounds like the info in this case is going to the Senate, but fair enough.

Still seems kind of difficult to hide something that huge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:16 PM

6. financial theives are pretty clever as

I've learned from watching American Greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:24 PM

8. I guess, but still, that's like 12 billion dollars or something.

You need a real big fuckin' mattress to hide that much scratch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:26 PM

20. I think that was an error. I believe what was offered was the brokerage fee

Last edited Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

for the Rosneft deal.


/photo/1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:37 PM

21. Here's how.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1582OH

Like many large deals, the Rosneft privatization uses a structure of shell companies owning shell companies, commonly referred to in Russia as a "matryoshka", after the wooden nesting dolls that open to reveal a smaller doll inside.

Following the trail of ownership leads to a Glencore UK subsidiary and a company that shares addresses with the Qatari Investment Authority, but also to a firm registered in the Cayman Islands, which does not require companies to record publicly who owns them.

The Singapore-registered investment vehicle that holds the newly privatized 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft is called QHG Shares. It is owned by a London-registered limited liability partnership, QHG Investments, which in turn lists as one of its two owners another London-registered limited liability partnership, QHG Holding, created on Dec. 5.

One of the partners in QHG Holding is QHG Cayman Limited, registered at an address of the Cayman Islands office of Walkers, an international law firm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:48 PM

23. Hmmm.

I dont pretend to understand it, but I do think it odd that the 19.5% mystery share gels so closely with the 19% referenced in the Steele dossier.

And as per your tweet above, if the .5% was the brokerage fee or whatever (still a fat chunk of change) that makes the numbers line up even better, doesnt it? 19% to the qatari fund or shell companies or whatever, plus .5% = 19.5%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:58 PM

24. Yes, and you can see here how the mistake was made.

This link shows the page from the Steele dossier, which clearly says "the brokerage of up to 19% of . . . " but whoever wrote the article missed the key words "the brokerage" and just reported the 19%.

Big difference!

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/11/mnuchin-needs-to-explain-the-19-5-sale-of-rosneft/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 12:00 AM

25. Got it. Interesting.

At least I didnt pull that full 19% out of my OWN ass, then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:12 PM

2. I thought that was hilarious, though Chris seemed caught off guard. I laughed

at a lot of stuff said by the former Watergate prosecutor, he was so matter of fact of his Obstruction of Justice case he could bring and said it with such glee it was infectious. Even Matt Miller was laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem4decades (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:14 PM

5. "up the wazoo"

was a great line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:18 PM

7. "Copping to the hookers" doesn't mean "cop a plea," does it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:00 PM

13. Afaik it does, meaning admitting to, or pleading guilty to.


cop to
phrasal verb
US
informal

Accept or admit to.
‘there are a lot of people in the world who don't cop to their past’


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cop_to



It might also carry an implication of pleading guilty to a lesser charge or to avoid something worse or get some consideration for the plea, hence the idea of 'cop' meaning to get, like to get a deal from the prosecutor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 05:44 AM

30. But there is no mention of any deal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:45 PM

22. No, it doesn't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:34 PM

10. This reminds me, I have an overdue book. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rzemanfl (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:56 PM

11. So do I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:07 PM

16. She's gone. If we could just rid ourselves of Drumpf so easily. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rzemanfl (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:19 PM

18. I have nightmares about overdue books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:22 PM

19. Are the books about trolls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 09:58 PM

12. Is english your second language? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #12)


Response to Name removed (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:02 PM

14. George Washington was former military. I trust him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:11 PM

17. trump has hired attorneys, which tried to jump out with the trump's lies,

probably the only ones believing these lies are those who can't face the fact trump is a loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 12:07 AM

26. I lol'ed when he said that. It was really funny. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 12:11 AM

27. I LOL'ed out loud! That was hilarious...and no,

"copping to the hookers" doesn't mean copping a plea - "copping to" is more like "owning up to", or admitting to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwest (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 01:32 AM

28. exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tactical Peek (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 02:30 AM

29. that was funny

a LOL moment. And then there was Lawrence - had me laughing several times - the adjectives!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread