Macri's Amnesia

[ben]

I m reading the real journalist, they assert: "The documents also expose bribery scandals and corrupt head of the State and government. The alleged offshore companies of twelve current and former head of State [Macri included] makes one of the most spectacular parts of the leak".

Nice, very nice.

http://panamapapers....bb8d3c3495adf4/

But I couldn't find the phrasal you quoted. You were not refering to Clarin or Lanata as Real press/journalist right?

From the page bajo kindly linked to:

Panama Papers is the biggest-ever international cooperation of its kind. In the past 12 months, around 400 journalists from more than 100 media organizations in over 80 countries have taken part in researching the documents. These have included teams from the Guardian and the BBC in England, Le Monde in France, and La Nación in Argentina.

1) So apparently 'real journalists' have a higher opinion of La Nacion, or the reality thereof, than our resident K troll sympathizer. Does that mean that their opinion regarding this fake scandal (to this point) counts for something?

2) And yes, that a German paper didn't take pains to sobreseer Macri from the list of heads of state mentioned, means a lot.

It can't possibly be that they were making a larger point about the massiveness of the leak in general. No, they either had to put everything aside - you know, real stuff going on in these papers - and investigate Macri, or otherwise they obviously agree with bajo's conclusion.

What an idiot. Or, what a liar. You choose.

======

From the same page (emphasis added):

Generally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions. However, a look through the Panama Papers very quickly reveals that concealing the identities of the true company owners was the primary aim in the vast majority of cases.

So, if -

1. the problem with showing up in the papers is a presumption that MF's clients were trying to conceal their holdings;
   
2. the business which was ostensibly supposed to be concealed, had been declared, in Argentina;

then what on earth are we talking about?

PS If someone doesn't quote this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with the forgery of the paper he linked to.
Same for my previous 2 posts.

 

[thorsten]

Just because there are cases that "expose bribery scandals and corrupt governments" doesn't mean that all names in the data are automatically criminal - which is by the way also in the article you referenced ("Generally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions."), but you seem to filter these things out if they don't fit the agenda. So why not present some real proof which would convince a lot of members here instead of posting continuously useless accusations that only work in a La Campora meeting?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Because one thing is a company and another very different one is a politician. The politicians has a salary paid by the State so, an offshore company is only usefull to hide bribes. Is that clear?

 

[thorsten]

No, its illogical.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Sure, this is your logic:.



What i do understand is that the Panama papers is very very inconvenient for a President who made his campaign based on accusations of money laundry against the former President while him instead of her is in the Panama papers scandal.

So, yo assert it is illogical because you do not like the law and / or you disagree with the journalist who made the investigation because, according to them, the best part is the one that involves, among others, Macri.

 

[EJLarson]

Because one thing is a company and another very different one is a politician. The politicians has a salary paid by the State so, an offshore company is only usefull to hide bribes. Is that clear?

Very clear, but completely wrong. Unless you don't realize that being a politician is a job, and that the politician may have other financial interests - as just about all of them do. Macri especially, because there's a family fortune behind him.

And why would you even talk about "bribes" in context of Macri when we all know he is independently wealthy? Why would he want (or run the risk of taking) bribes? It would be completely illogical - but then, so is most of what you post about anything but the law.

 

[scotttswan]

From the page bajo kindly linked to:



1) So apparently 'real journalists' have a higher opinion of La Nacion, or the reality thereof, than our resident K troll sympathizer. Does that mean that their opinion regarding this fake scandal (to this point) counts for something?

2) And yes, that a German paper didn't take pains to sobreseer Macri from the list of heads of state mentioned, means a lot.

It can't possibly be that they were making a larger point about the massiveness of the leak in general. No, they either had to put everything aside - you know, real stuff going on in these papers - and investigate Macri, or otherwise they obviously agree with bajo's conclusion.

What an idiot. Or, what a liar. You choose.

======

From the same page (emphasis added):



So, if -

1. the problem with showing up in the papers is a presumption that MF's clients were trying to conceal their holdings;
   
2. the business which was ostensibly supposed to be concealed, had been declared, in Argentina;

then what on earth are we talking about?

PS If someone doesn't quote this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with the forgery of the paper he linked to.
Same for my previous 2 posts.

 

[scotttswan]

From the page bajo kindly linked to:



1) So apparently 'real journalists' have a higher opinion of La Nacion, or the reality thereof, than our resident K troll sympathizer. Does that mean that their opinion regarding this fake scandal (to this point) counts for something?

2) And yes, that a German paper didn't take pains to sobreseer Macri from the list of heads of state mentioned, means a lot.

It can't possibly be that they were making a larger point about the massiveness of the leak in general. No, they either had to put everything aside - you know, real stuff going on in these papers - and investigate Macri, or otherwise they obviously agree with bajo's conclusion.

What an idiot. Or, what a liar. You choose.

======

From the same page (emphasis added):



So, if -

1. the problem with showing up in the papers is a presumption that MF's clients were trying to conceal their holdings;
   
2. the business which was ostensibly supposed to be concealed, had been declared, in Argentina;

then what on earth are we talking about?

PS If someone doesn't quote this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with the forgery of the paper he linked to.
Same for my previous 2 posts.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Very clear, but completely wrong. Unless you don't realize that being a politician is a job, and that the politician may have other financial interests - as just about all of them do. Macri especially, because there's a family fortune behind him.

And why would you even talk about "bribes" in context of Macri when we all know he is independently wealthy? Why would he want (or run the risk of taking) bribes? It would be completely illogical - but then, so is most of what you post about anything but the law.

1) Well, if you read the newspapers, the prosecutor imputes the malicious omission in the affidavit.
2) Sorry, but they are banned from other financial interest.
3) Right, he made his fortune regarding dirty busisness with the State and now he became honest?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Nice, the President tryied to explain the inexplicable and he said on National TV that he was going to go to the civil justice for to feign...

http://www.diarioreg...8087b7544405778