Hacker Leaks Intel Emails of State Department Russian Affairs Official

a reply to: Perfectenemy

That is some crazy stuff there.

bowder seems to be positioning himself
as her enemy. Was he in Russia to take the picture?

Or did he get it from social media?

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Perfectenemy

That is some crazy stuff there.

bowder seems to be positioning himself
as her enemy. Was he in Russia to take the picture?

Or did he get it from social media?

Browder snapped it by himself and forwarded it to another person. I also read somewhere that Natalia even lived in the US but it is unconfirmed.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Very Interesting...also read his bio.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

I see the propaganda machine is working overtime trying to make Trump's Russia problems the fault of anyone other than the Trump campaign...

Goofy.

a reply to: Dudemo5

Yeah? You're here, trying to derail and deflect? I'm guessing you had tears during election night.

Its okay, we have a real leader in position and the balls to take in the BS fake russo narrative. Stay tuned my goofy brother.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Dudemo5

Yeah? You're here, trying to derail and deflect? I'm guessing you had tears during election night.

Its okay, we have a real leader in position and the balls to take in the BS fake russo narrative. Stay tuned my goofy brother.

Again with you?

Not that you honestly care, but I thought Hillary was an abomination, and I sure as hell didn't cry on election night. But this stuff coming out of the right prop machine since the Trump Jr. emails broke is just about the most pitiful attempt at deflection I've ever seen.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
I see the propaganda machine is working overtime trying to make Trump's Russia problems the fault of anyone other than the Trump campaign...

Goofy.

Who's more likely in this scenario to be so-called "propaganda" ... the person who has been registered here since 2009 and so has been around the block for nearly 10 years here, OR, the person who has really been here less than a year with less than 100 posts?

Even if you've been a long-time lurker, it's only been recently that you've been moved to post.

Goofy indeed.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Dudemo5
I see the propaganda machine is working overtime trying to make Trump's Russia problems the fault of anyone other than the Trump campaign...

Goofy.

Who's more likely in this scenario to be so-called "propaganda" ... the person who has been registered here since 2009 and so has been around the block for nearly 10 years here, OR, the person who has really been here less than a year with less than 100 posts?

Even if you've been a long-time lurker, it's only been recently that you've been moved to post.

Goofy indeed.

I'd say most of the original thread starters on any forum related to politics are propaganda from one party or the other, as most of it is borrowed from news outlets that favor one side or the other. Most of the other posts in said threads are merely reactions to the propaganda, whether a person has been here one day or 10 years. Of course, even those reactions are largely influenced by propaganda.

If ATS would give me a way to remove all political forums from my recent list, I'd never post in these abominations. As it stands, however, I have to search through 10 pages of results just to find a decent new thread that's non political, so I figure you might as well have to deal with the inevitable consequence of that.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
I see the propaganda machine is working overtime trying to make Trump's Russia problems the fault of anyone other than the Trump campaign...

Goofy.

Yeah apropos propaganda machine. The NYT reporter was so full of anticipation and convinced that he has the smoking gun of all guns that he just decided hey lets wait for 1 year before i publish it. You know just for #s and giggles. Yep makes perfect sense. I'm still amazed why people have such a hard time to see the obvious pattern emerging that follows the russian narrative around.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
the russian narrative.

Why you like'em narrative?

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Dudemo5
I see the propaganda machine is working overtime trying to make Trump's Russia problems the fault of anyone other than the Trump campaign...

Goofy.

Who's more likely in this scenario to be so-called "propaganda" ... the person who has been registered here since 2009 and so has been around the block for nearly 10 years here, OR, the person who has really been here less than a year with less than 100 posts?

Even if you've been a long-time lurker, it's only been recently that you've been moved to post.

Goofy indeed.

I'd say most of the original thread starters on any forum related to politics are propaganda from one party or the other, as most of it is borrowed from news outlets that favor one side or the other. Most of the other posts in said threads are merely reactions to the propaganda, whether a person has been here one day or 10 years. Of course, even those reactions are largely influenced by propaganda.

If ATS would give me a way to remove all political forums from my recent list, I'd never post in these abominations. As it stands, however, I have to search through 10 pages of results just to find a decent new thread that's non political, so I figure you might as well have to deal with the inevitable consequence of that.

You are able to separate what you see on your page here. There is a section where you can eliminate the forums you don't want to read...or at least there used to be...not sure if it's still available.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is a way to bypass it.

If I don't want to see political stuff, I just bring up the forums and go search through the ones that interest me. You can see the most recent posts there. Sure, it's not as convenient as the "recent" and "new" tabs at the top of the page, but it works with a bit of effort.

The plot thickens:

What if Veselnitskaya
Had been here in previous years summoned by no
than Preet Bharara's direction?

Reports surfacing of this very thing.

originally posted by: burntheships
The plot thickens:

What if Veselnitskaya
Had been here in previous years summoned by no
than Preet Bharara's direction?

Reports surfacing of this very thing.

Where did you see this?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Us Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

Re:United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd, et al 13 Civ. 6326 (TPG)

assets.documentcloud.org...


She is a well known figure for as far back as 2015.

Well well... What a tangled web!


This should have a new thread? I can't believe the level
of deception being played out by the media and the
officials involved in this!

Us Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

Re:United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd, et al 13 Civ. 6326 (TPG)

assets.documentcloud.org...

The Government has received the defendants’ request for reimbursement for their deposition expenses, and has released the requested amount of $50,365.72, pursuant to the Court’s October 19, 2015 Order. See Dkt. No. 374. The Government now respectfully requests a Court order (i) finding that this is a reasonable reimbursement for expenses related to three individuals travelling from Russia to New York to attend four days of depositions, and (ii) barring any further requests for reimbursement for this trip.

As background, the Government noticed three party witnesses for depositions in New York City from October 13-16, 2015: Denis Katsyv, Alexander Litvak, and Timofey Krit. The Court ordered the Government to release funds to cover the costs incurred by these witnesses to attend the depositions in New York. See Dkt. No. 374. The defendants have submitted $50,365.72 of receipts for airfare, hotels, meals, and interpreter services, and the Government has released these funds. However, the defendants claim that this amount represents only a portion of the expenses for three witnesses to travel to New York City from Russia for four days of depositions, and that they intend to submit a further request for additional reimbursement.

The Government asks the Court to find that the $50,365.72 released is amply sufficient to cover the cost of three witnesses attending four days of depositions. The expenses that the defendants have already claimed, and that the Government has reimbursed pursuant to the Court’s order, include a two nights’ stay at the Plaza Hotel in a $995/night room for Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was not deposed and did not even attend the depositions in person, for the weekend after the depositions had concluded. Ms. Veselnitskaya appears to have stayed at a less expensive hotel during the depositions, but moved to the Plaza after the depositions concluded, and only after the Court orally stated that the Government would be responsible for reimbursing Defendants’ expenses. These claimed expenses also include multiple expensive meals, such as a $793.29 dinner for five individuals (although, again, only three witnesses were deposed), which included eighteen dishes, eight grappas, and two expensive bottles of wine.

Defendants claim that they “are collecting additional invoices and will submit a further request for reimbursement as soon as possible.” The Government asks the Court to find that any reasonable expenses related to three individuals travelling to New York for three days of depositions have certainly been met by the payment of over $50,000, and to hold that the Government is not required to release any further funds out of the properly- seized assets.
Respectfully submitted,

PREET BHARARA United States Attorney

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: IAMTAT


assets.documentcloud.org...


She is a well known figure for as far back as 2015.

Well well... What a tangled web!

That letter is from Preet Bharara.

WaPo
Days after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, he summoned Preet Bharara to Trump Tower. The president-elect wanted to talk to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York about his future. Afterward, Bharara — one of the most influential prosecutors in the country, best known for going after Wall Street as well as members of both political parties — told reporters he’d been asked whether he wanted to stay on. “The President-elect asked, presumably because he’s a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years, asked to meet with me to discuss whether or not I’d be prepared to stay on as the United States attorney to do the work as we have done it, independently, without fear or favor, for the last seven years,” Bharara said in a brief statement to reporters after meeting with Trump.

And then this happened:

Democrat and Chronicle
ALBANY -- U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Saturday the Trump administration fired him after he refused its request to resign along with 45 other U.S. attorneys across the nation.

“Today, I was fired from my position as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York," he said in a statement after he initially wrote on Twitter he was let go. Bharara was in a standoff with the Trump administration after he would not resign late Friday when the Trump administration dumped the federal prosecutors held over from the Obama administration.

And then this came out:

Vanity Fair
Bharara’s account appears to be bolstered by a ProPublica report published Tuesday, which suggests that Trump fired Bharara specifically to neutralize a potential political threat. According to four sources that spoke to ProPublica, Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s personal lawyer and his primary counsel on matters related to the Russia investigation, had bragged that he was largely responsible for getting the U.S. attorney for New York's Southern District fired. “This guy is going to get you,” Kasowitz recalled saying to Trump, according to one of the sources. (Kasowitz has not returned the Hive's request for comment.)

Tangled web indeed.

LawNewz.com
For starters, the Katsyv family lawyer just happened to be Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same Russian lawyer who famously met with Donald Trump Jr. the previous summer, has gotten the attention of Democrats on House Judiciary Committee. The Committee members sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday, asking just what the heck happened.

“We write with some concern that the two events may be connected,” the letter says, “and that the Department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts.”

On top of that, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York when the case was first filed there in 2013 was none other than Preet Bharara. Yup, the same Preet Bharara who President Trump famously fired, roughly two months before the DOJ settled the Prevezon case. Now, this wouldn’t bother me at all, if the settlement didn’t seem to come out of nowhere.

a reply to: PistolPete

It was Preet Bharara's claim that the President asked him to stay. The President never said that. He could have planned to remove him all along.

See this thread for more about what really happened in the Russian Fraud case:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Assuming this all checks out, it looks like the Trumps could file a pretty severe libel/slander lawsuit against multiple parties, including CNN, the Russian chick, and Preet.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I get a feeling that somehow this is linked to it all