Thus Spoke Kristina....""

[Pensador]

I think we should all just stop replying to the Quack Doc you cannot do anything about a life condition called St()pid it is pointless.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

And of course, being the officer of the court that you are, you wouldn't say this without hard proof. Did you see the receipts?

I m not at officer of Court and this is not a criminal trial.

However, you do not have a so high standard to acusse the former President. It is called hipocresy?

I understand how uncorfortable is that while you (plural) were looking for the K money route, unstead you found the M black money route.

While the K money route is based on Fariña (Who declared in different ways and was released after pointing CFK) the M dirty money route is documented on the Panama papers.

Seems we have now the most corrupted government ever since almost all the members has offshores.

The President seems to be lying when he said that:
A) he knew about the 4rd offshore by the press, when another 9 were found;
B ) that one of the them was inactive when it was active.

So, i m really enjoying this mani pulite.

 

[semigoodlookin]

However, you do not have a so high standard to acusse the former President. It is called hipocresy?

Maybe, but then accusations towards the former (or indeed current President) are not baseless. EJLarson was talking about you saying Lanata was paid by Singer, which seems baseless. So again, the simply question is, what proof or source do you have for the accusation you made. It should be a simple answer.

I am not saying the proof or sources do not exist either, I don't know, which is why you should provide the basis for your accusation.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I m not accusing, i m alleguing on the lack of credibility of the accusation against CFK because until now because I smell rotten fish as soon as Singer got what he wanted based on the Lanata show.

Lanata was investigating the law firm that is involved on the Panama papers scandal. I remember him asserting that this law firm was involved in the K money route.

That law firm stated that Lanata was financed by Singer.

There were no CFK offshores there, but a lot related of offshores to the officialism.

FYI what I m doing is call critizism of public officers and this is the ABC of the republian system of government and the only limit is actual malice not the hypocrite standard Larson use for Macri, totally different that the one he uses with CFK.

CFK and Macri must be criminally investigated by non biased judges. Bonadio is biased.

 

[scotttswan]

I m not accusing, i m alleguing on the lack of credibility of the accusation against CFK because until now because I smell rotten fish as soon as Singer got what he wanted based on the Lanata show.

Lanata was investigating the law firm that is involved on the Panama papers scandal. I remember him asserting that this law firm was involved in the K money route.

That law firm stated that Lanata was financed by Singer.

There were no CFK offshores there, but a lot related of offshores to the officialism.

FYI what I m doing is call critizism of public officers and this is the ABC of the republian system of government and the only limit is actual malice not the hypocrite standard Larson use for Macri, totally different that the one he uses with CFK.

CFK and Macri must be criminally investigated by non biased judges. Bonadio is biased.

Ignoring the fact there were cfk related offshores there.

 

[EJLarson]

I m not at officer of Court and this is not a criminal trial.

Bajo, you are really becoming boring, and that's too bad - you were often entertaining. Let's review:

YOU said that Paul Singer paid Lanata. I asked you to provide some - any - proof of that assertion.

YOU jumped up and down, yelling and pointing at Macri: "Look at him! Look at him!" But what about Singer and Lanata? When did you answer that question? Oh, right ... never. And to think you have the cojones to call someone else hypocritical?

Sorry, Bajo, you've become too predictable to even be entertaining. Too bad.

(And you are an officer of the court - oficial de juzgado. That means you are held to a higher standard of truth and ethics - even when you're not in court. Right.)

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Maybe, but then accusations towards the former (or indeed current President) are not baseless. EJLarson was talking about you saying Lanata was paid by Singer, which seems baseless. So again, the simply question is, what proof or source do you have for the accusation you made. It should be a simple answer.

I am not saying the proof or sources do not exist either, I don't know, which is why you should provide the basis for your accusation.

With all my respect, it is a stupid question as soon as it is public that the Fonseca Law firm accused Lanata of being paid by Singer.

How or why should I have evidence or further knowledge? It is ridicolous.

Even I used to work in high profile criminal cases, if I share privileged information (that I do not have), this is a crime.

However, if the accusations are ir not baseless, the criminal justice should say it. But, politically is difficult to explain that someone who made his campaign accusing the officialism of corruption is discover to have, him, his family abd his team, so many offshores that are not use for saint pourpuses.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Bajo, you are really becoming boring, and that's too bad - you were often entertaining. Let's review:

YOU said that Paul Singer paid Lanata. I asked you to provide some - any - proof of that assertion.

YOU jumped up and down, yelling and pointing at Macri: "Look at him! Look at him!" But what about Singer and Lanata? When did you answer that question? Oh, right ... never. And to think you have the cojones to call someone else hypocritical?

Sorry, Bajo, you've become too predictable to even be entertaining. Too bad.

(And you are an officer of the court - oficial de juzgado. That means you are held to a higher standard of truth and ethics - even when you're not in court. Right.)

You are a little pathetic playing to be a lawyer. Hellooooooooo, this is a forum and we are not at Court..

It is pathetic too to ask for evidence when you and me can read about this in the news papers. Should I go to Panama with a hidden camera to satisfy your deliriums? I think not.

It is also pathetic to defend a President who has a lot of offshores and every day we know about a new one. He has to be judged. And if the former president washed money, she should go to jail too.

This is the only one President who asserts that is completely OK to have hidden offshores. Hilarious.

But even worst is to be hypocrite.

 

[Rich One]

You are a little pathetic playing to be a lawyer. Hellooooooooo, this is a forum and we are not at Court..

It is pathetic too to ask for evidence when you and me can read about this in the news papers. Should I go to Panama with a hidden camera to satisfy your deliriums? I think not.

It is also pathetic to defend a President who has a lot of offshores and every day we know about a new one. He has to be judged. And if the former president washed money, she should go to jail too.

This is the only one President who asserts that is completely OK to have hidden offshores. Hilarious.

But even worst is to be hypocrite.

Hey Bajo can you quote a source that mentions the 16 offshore accounts/Inc.'s where Macri participates....?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Hey Bajo can you quote a source that mentions the 16 offshore accounts/Inc.'s where Macri participates....?

http://lageneracionsiguiente.blogspot.com.ar/2016/04/escandalo-panama-papers-de-13.html?m=1