Macri's Amnesia

[scotttswan]

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?

But the accounts were from before he was a politician?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

But the accounts were from before he was a politician?

The President failed to declare the offshore accounts when he was an elected politician
By the way, seems that another 5 offshore accounts were opened by members of his family since he was elected President

Ups, wait! what about Cameron?

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

Can you explain me what did he meant when he said that he was going to feign at Court? Was he trying to confuse the public opinion with this no sense Court presentation?

 

[Silvie]

Los chorros that run the country during the past 12 years and stole all there was left - have to be dealt with on a PRIORITY basis

 

[ben]

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

Very in character. The sum total of the linked article was the following (very rough translation mine):

We already know that Macri does not possess strong rhetorical ability, but this time, given the context, one can take it as a terribly failed act.

The president had come out to discuss the Panama Papers case, subsequent to the pressure from various sides that he come out to offer explanations about his indictment on account of the offshore companies in which he appeared.

But, when he tried to explain, he almost ended up making everything murkier.

WTF?

The article was accompanied by a K staple: a 20-second annotated YouTube clip from Macri's speech on Thursday.
It shows him momentarily tripping up on a word (annotated because you'd probably miss it otherwise), then repeats the same but making Macri's voice slower and huskier.
Really, WTF?

And so with this last post of his, we return to the quintessential question: Is bajo a moron or a troll?


PS Unless someone quotes this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with Diario Registrado's last forgery he linked to.

 

[ben]

The President failed to declare the offshore accounts when he was an elected politician

For a company for which he claims to have received no renumeration. Are you pretending not to know this?

(typical bajo - just ignore the parts which don't help the cause).

Macri made 2 factual assertions:

• that he received no renumeration from the companies in question (and as such did not need to disclose them), and
• that the companies were, in fact, declared by the person who was supposed to - his father.

These will be corroborated or disproved. If disproved, Macri will have been lying outright on national TV.

By the way, seems that another 5 offshore accounts were opened by members of his family since he was elected President

Huh?
What?
True or not, this is relevant how?

Ups, wait! what about Cameron?

Huh???
What???
This is relevant how????

Can you explain me what did he meant when he said that he was going to feign at Court? Was he trying to confuse the public opinion with this no sense Court presentation?

He said - apparently on advice from his legal team - that he would attempt to seek a declaratory judgement from the court that his stance his correct.

He also made clear that he would make himself available to any other judge or prosecutor - a clear reference to the indictment already underway.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you're right and that his reference to this proceeding was somehow incorrect. What is confusing about what he said or what he is trying to do??

The 'trying to confuse' is coming from another side entirely. As usual.

PS Unless someone quotes this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with the last forgery he linked to.

 

[semigoodlookin]

For a company for which he claims to have received no renumeration. Are you pretending not to know this?

(typical bajo - just ignore the parts which don't help the cause).

Macri made 2 factual assertions:

• that he received no renumeration from the companies in question (and as such did not need to disclose them), and
• that the companies were, in fact, declared by the person who was supposed to - his father.

These will be corroborated or disproved. If disproved, Macri will have been lying outright on national TV.



Huh?
What?
True or not, this is relevant how?



Huh???
What???
This is relevant how????



He said - apparently on advice from his legal team - that he would attempt to seek a declaratory judgement from the court that his stance his correct.

He also made clear that he would make himself available to any other judge or prosecutor - a clear reference to the indictment already underway.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you're right and that his reference to this proceeding was somehow incorrect. What is confusing about what he said or what he is trying to do??

The 'trying to confuse' is coming from another side entirely. As usual.

PS Unless someone quotes this, bajo won't see it, as he ran away with his tail between his legs ignored me when confronted with the last forgery he linked to.

Just putting it out that I agree.

 

[TrevorCito]

Stay on topic: the President Macri and the off shore accounts for black money.

I have a few simple questions:

Can somebody please explain how an offshore company = offshore bank account? Call me simple but I though they were different things.

Is there any evidence that the company that named Macri as director had bank accounts?

Lastly, if a bank account existed, is there any evidence to show it was used for 'black money'?

 

[thorsten]

They are different, but bajo either doesn't understand it (which I doubt) or prefers to deviate from the truth if it fits his agenda (which we've observed countless of times). According to his own statements, Macri had no share in the company and it didn't even have a bank account - which would make it really hard to transfer black money to it... So far, there is no evidence stating anything else and I'm sure this case would be on the top list for each journalist to investigate. So all the fuzz - with the information we have now - is just used as propaganda for people who don't understand anything. Obviously, if someone is pro-K and contra Macri, now more than ever you want to distract from the real corruption that went on for more than a decade, but it looks like the air is getting thinner and thinner after the testimony of Farina...

 

[scotttswan]

[quote thorsten' timestamp='1460297976' post='327763']
They are different, but bajo either doesn't understand it (which I doubt) or prefers to deviate from the truth if it fits his agenda (which we've observed countless of times). According to his own statements, Macri had no share in the company and it didn't even have a bank account - which would make it really hard to transfer black money to it... So far, there is no evidence stating anything else and I'm sure this case would be on the top list for each journalist to investigate. So all the fuzz - with the information we have now - is just used as propaganda for people who don't understand anything. Obviously, if someone is pro-K and contra Macri, now more than ever you want to distract from the real corruption that went on for more than a decade, but it looks like the air is getting thinner and thinner after the testimony of Farina...
[/quote]

Very different from Cameron who did have shares in his fathers company and did make money from them.

 

[Patagone]

I have a few simple questions:

Can somebody please explain how an offshore company = offshore bank account? Call me simple but I though they were different things.

Is there any evidence that the company that named Macri as director had bank accounts?

Lastly, if a bank account existed, is there any evidence to show it was used for 'black money'?

I suggest that you read the Guardian's coverage of the Panama papers. They are very, very careful and every article contains at least one disclaimer stating that offshore accounts and companies are not in any way illegal in themselves. It's what you do and don't do with them that can have legal and/or moral implications.

Still I rather have one individual (maybe) not pay taxes on what he owns than another stealing billions from other taxpayers.