Topic: Former United States Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is a total piece of shit.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #108,459
Check out what this piece of shit tried to pull off:
https://time.com/5887230/rick-perry-deals-energy-ukraine/
https://time.com/5887230/rick-perry-deals-energy-ukraine/
Nopaltzin !tPKtSxO9ak joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 day later[^] [v] #1,215,103
lol
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,111
That link will get you a deletion and a ban or at least it did.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,120
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,138
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,177
Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,201
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,204
@previous (E)
Matt’s dad was part of a scheme to rip off Ukraine and sell them overpriced natural gas.
Matt’s dad was part of a scheme to rip off Ukraine and sell them overpriced natural gas.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,235
Some of the people Rick Perry surrounded himself with sound like true scum of the earth.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 23 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,484
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 10 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,549
> Family libel
Look Matt I'm tired of the Rick Perry Time Magazine Ukraine spam as you are but libel is untrue.
If you feel your family has been libelled, you have to take that up with Time magazine because I am not the editor of Time magazine.
If you feel you have a case, that the Time article is false and libellous, why not take it up in civil court with them?
Look Matt I'm tired of the Rick Perry Time Magazine Ukraine spam as you are but libel is untrue.
If you feel your family has been libelled, you have to take that up with Time magazine because I am not the editor of Time magazine.
If you feel you have a case, that the Time article is false and libellous, why not take it up in civil court with them?
Nopaltzin !tPKtSxO9ak replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,561
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,562
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 9 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,617
@1,215,549 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> > Family libel
>
> Look Matt I'm tired of the Rick Perry Time Magazine Ukraine spam as you are but libel is untrue.
>
> If you feel your family has been libelled, you have to take that up with Time magazine because I am not the editor of Time magazine.
>
> If you feel you have a case, that the Time article is false and libellous, why not take it up in civil court with them?
Really, you’re tired of it?
It’s been suppressed non-stop since it first was posted here. There’s been almost no allowed discussion of it just vague allusions to it.
Mods have deleted links or topics about it that didn’t even mention Matt at all.
Matt hasn’t even commented on it since you guys have done such a good job scrubbing any links or discussion on it.
> > Family libel
>
> Look Matt I'm tired of the Rick Perry Time Magazine Ukraine spam as you are but libel is untrue.
>
> If you feel your family has been libelled, you have to take that up with Time magazine because I am not the editor of Time magazine.
>
> If you feel you have a case, that the Time article is false and libellous, why not take it up in civil court with them?
Really, you’re tired of it?
It’s been suppressed non-stop since it first was posted here. There’s been almost no allowed discussion of it just vague allusions to it.
Mods have deleted links or topics about it that didn’t even mention Matt at all.
Matt hasn’t even commented on it since you guys have done such a good job scrubbing any links or discussion on it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,618
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 40 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,620
@1,215,617 (C)
I wonder how much of a scare it caused the M*ller family? Certainly I'd think it would've caused more concern with them than the well connected Perry family. Although this is probably nothing compared to the fraud conviction they had to deal with in the late 80s. I'd expect the whole Ukraine affair would've been a very unpleasant deja vu, at minimum.
I wonder how much of a scare it caused the M*ller family? Certainly I'd think it would've caused more concern with them than the well connected Perry family. Although this is probably nothing compared to the fraud conviction they had to deal with in the late 80s. I'd expect the whole Ukraine affair would've been a very unpleasant deja vu, at minimum.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,621
@previous (F)
I read the article. Nothing in it is "illegal". A company without assets is not illegal. The company never claimed to have assets. It claimed to be a company that brought together experts in the field. It is 100% legal. Whatever.
I read the article. Nothing in it is "illegal". A company without assets is not illegal. The company never claimed to have assets. It claimed to be a company that brought together experts in the field. It is 100% legal. Whatever.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,622
@previous (H)
Misrepresenting a business for the sake of financial gain is fraud. Also, given the prior fraud conviction, I'm led to believe this misrepresentation was entirely intentional. What's your view on that prior conviction?
Misrepresenting a business for the sake of financial gain is fraud. Also, given the prior fraud conviction, I'm led to believe this misrepresentation was entirely intentional. What's your view on that prior conviction?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,627
@previous (F)
No one misrepresented anything. The business never claimed to have assets. They claimed to be a business that brings experts in the field together. 100% legal and ethical.
No one misrepresented anything. The business never claimed to have assets. They claimed to be a business that brings experts in the field together. 100% legal and ethical.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,629
@previous (H)
> “We looked them up,” says Andrew Favorov, the Naftogaz executive who vetted the potential partner. A Google search led them to the past legal woes of Miller, LNGE’s co-founder and director. That was a red flag for the Ukrainians. Moreover, says Favorov, “The company has no real assets.” So Naftogaz advised its government not to pursue a gas deal with the Louisiana company.
Then why would Favorov bail on the deal after discovering this? The only logical explanation is that he was led to believe otherwise.
What's your view on Miller's fraud conviction from the late 80s?
> “We looked them up,” says Andrew Favorov, the Naftogaz executive who vetted the potential partner. A Google search led them to the past legal woes of Miller, LNGE’s co-founder and director. That was a red flag for the Ukrainians. Moreover, says Favorov, “The company has no real assets.” So Naftogaz advised its government not to pursue a gas deal with the Louisiana company.
Then why would Favorov bail on the deal after discovering this? The only logical explanation is that he was led to believe otherwise.
What's your view on Miller's fraud conviction from the late 80s?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,630
@previous (F)
Again, no company claimed to have assets. They claimed to be a company that brings together top experts.
Again, no company claimed to have assets. They claimed to be a company that brings together top experts.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,631
@previous (H)
Then why would Favorov bail on the deal after discovering this? The only logical explanation is that he was led to believe otherwise.
What's your view on Miller's fraud conviction from the late 80s?
Then why would Favorov bail on the deal after discovering this? The only logical explanation is that he was led to believe otherwise.
What's your view on Miller's fraud conviction from the late 80s?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,632
@previous (F)
Because he did not want to deal with a company with no assets. Period. It was nothing illegal. The company never claimed otherwise. From the 1980s? The one where they won the appeal and thus a US court agreed that the original trial was unfair? I think it is an example of justice.
Because he did not want to deal with a company with no assets. Period. It was nothing illegal. The company never claimed otherwise. From the 1980s? The one where they won the appeal and thus a US court agreed that the original trial was unfair? I think it is an example of justice.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,635
@previous (H)
Are you reading the same article I am? The entire point was to set up a gas exportation deal, not to "bring together top experts" to sit around and talk about talking about making a deal. This little slight of hand, if we're generous enough to even call it that, is also, in context, on top of the coercive and threatening behavior also mentioned in the article about withholding military aid.
> From the 1980s? The one where they won the appeal and thus a US court agreed that the original trial was unfair? I think it is an example of justice.
What, specifically was unfair? Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Are you reading the same article I am? The entire point was to set up a gas exportation deal, not to "bring together top experts" to sit around and talk about talking about making a deal. This little slight of hand, if we're generous enough to even call it that, is also, in context, on top of the coercive and threatening behavior also mentioned in the article about withholding military aid.
> From the 1980s? The one where they won the appeal and thus a US court agreed that the original trial was unfair? I think it is an example of justice.
What, specifically was unfair? Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,636
@previous (F)
The company never claimed to have assets. Not going to argue this anymore. It is a fact.
2. Take it up with the US federal courts. They decided that the trial was unfair. Go to law school if you want to protest it.
you seemed really, really obsessed with this. Go get some fresh air.
The company never claimed to have assets. Not going to argue this anymore. It is a fact.
2. Take it up with the US federal courts. They decided that the trial was unfair. Go to law school if you want to protest it.
you seemed really, really obsessed with this. Go get some fresh air.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,640
@previous (H)
How do you know the company never claimed to have assets? Were you there?
And even if they didn't make that claim (context would suggest that they did, though), they clearly led Favorov to believe they were offering something that they had no chance of providing, hence fraud regardless. It seems they were just as unprepared to bring the "top experts" together as they were to provide gas itself, given that the main man behind it was a convicted fraudster whose only experience was failed con after failed con.
You never answered my question: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
How do you know the company never claimed to have assets? Were you there?
And even if they didn't make that claim (context would suggest that they did, though), they clearly led Favorov to believe they were offering something that they had no chance of providing, hence fraud regardless. It seems they were just as unprepared to bring the "top experts" together as they were to provide gas itself, given that the main man behind it was a convicted fraudster whose only experience was failed con after failed con.
You never answered my question: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,641
@previous (F)
lol the US court system proved that the trial was unfair. Go take it up with the judges. Also, you are way too interested in things that have nothing to do with you. Seriously, man, get a life.
lol the US court system proved that the trial was unfair. Go take it up with the judges. Also, you are way too interested in things that have nothing to do with you. Seriously, man, get a life.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,643
@previous (H)
Just answer this simple question -- stop obsessing over the botched appeals court: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Just answer this simple question -- stop obsessing over the botched appeals court: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,644
@previous (F)
According to the US government, he did not. https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-courts-of-appeal
According to the US government, he did not. https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-courts-of-appeal
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,646
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,647
COCK
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,648
@1,215,646 (F)
https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-courts-of-appeal
The Court of Appeal states that the original trial was flawed and unfair. Again, take it up with the federal judges. Alternately, go to law school.
https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-courts-of-appeal
The Court of Appeal states that the original trial was flawed and unfair. Again, take it up with the federal judges. Alternately, go to law school.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,651
@previous (H)
Just answer this simple question -- stop obsessing over the botched appeals court: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
And, yes, I did go to law school. The appeals court did not have any problem with the lower court's fact finding or evidence. It was merely a procedural issue - a minor technicality in jury instruction - and the DA decided against further appeal simply due budget cuts. How do I know this? I did a class project on this in law school and presented on the case and its appeal. We all had a good laugh about it (especially at much of the so-called evidence thrown up by the defendants), same when I talked to Becky about it over discord not that long ago.
Just answer this simple question -- stop obsessing over the botched appeals court: Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
And, yes, I did go to law school. The appeals court did not have any problem with the lower court's fact finding or evidence. It was merely a procedural issue - a minor technicality in jury instruction - and the DA decided against further appeal simply due budget cuts. How do I know this? I did a class project on this in law school and presented on the case and its appeal. We all had a good laugh about it (especially at much of the so-called evidence thrown up by the defendants), same when I talked to Becky about it over discord not that long ago.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,652
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,653
@previous (H)
Yes, botched. That was the unanimous opinion of the class and everyone I talked to about the cases. Interestingly enough, the most entertaining part of the project for me was going through some FBI files an old friend of mine from California sent me. It was, admittedly, only tangentially related to the cases I was presenting on since it was about a family member and not the defendant himself, but the class found it interesting nonetheless when I presented it as a short bonus segment at the end of my presentation. My professor found it quite the presentation and gave me an A+ on the project and in the class.
Anyway, you never did answer any of my questions:
Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Also, you made some comments earlier claiming that Miller never made claims about his companies assets. How do you know that?
What is your connection with all of this anyway?
Yes, botched. That was the unanimous opinion of the class and everyone I talked to about the cases. Interestingly enough, the most entertaining part of the project for me was going through some FBI files an old friend of mine from California sent me. It was, admittedly, only tangentially related to the cases I was presenting on since it was about a family member and not the defendant himself, but the class found it interesting nonetheless when I presented it as a short bonus segment at the end of my presentation. My professor found it quite the presentation and gave me an A+ on the project and in the class.
Anyway, you never did answer any of my questions:
Was it fair that Miller and others used government connections to secure exclusive drilling access unavailable to everyone else? The state of Louisiana certainly thought so.
Also, you made some comments earlier claiming that Miller never made claims about his companies assets. How do you know that?
What is your connection with all of this anyway?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,655
@previous (F)
Not sure what to tell you, buddy. The US Appeals Court decided that the trial was unfair. Take it up with the judges. Goodnight.
Not sure what to tell you, buddy. The US Appeals Court decided that the trial was unfair. Take it up with the judges. Goodnight.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,657
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,658
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,659
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,660
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,661
@previous (H)
You seem to have an unexplained interest here.
What is your connection with all of this anyway?
You seem to have an unexplained interest here.
What is your connection with all of this anyway?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,662
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,663
@previous (H)
Is that you in the picture? I've explained my academic interest in the subject but here you are unable to explain why you're interested or how you know details about Miller that are not even public.
What's going on? Are you alright?
Is that you in the picture? I've explained my academic interest in the subject but here you are unable to explain why you're interested or how you know details about Miller that are not even public.
What's going on? Are you alright?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,664
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,665
Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,682
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,683
@1,215,621 (H)
> I read the article. Nothing in it is "illegal". A company without assets is not illegal. The company never claimed to have assets. It claimed to be a company that brought together experts in the field. It is 100% legal. Whatever.
Okay so a totally legal company did a totally legal thing and offered to bring some experts together to solve a problem, just like millions of companies do every day. How is this a libel? Libel must be untrue. The article makes no untrue claims so it cannot be "libel" by definition.
You said the article is "libel" so please tell me which, if any, statements in the Time magazine are untrue.
> I read the article. Nothing in it is "illegal". A company without assets is not illegal. The company never claimed to have assets. It claimed to be a company that brought together experts in the field. It is 100% legal. Whatever.
Okay so a totally legal company did a totally legal thing and offered to bring some experts together to solve a problem, just like millions of companies do every day. How is this a libel? Libel must be untrue. The article makes no untrue claims so it cannot be "libel" by definition.
You said the article is "libel" so please tell me which, if any, statements in the Time magazine are untrue.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,684
Huh. This thread ended up being some of my best work, and I've done great work on here over the years. Minimal effort to boot.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,698
@previous (A)
Partial credit goes to the mods who were fed up with dealing with 5+ mattreports a day and just gave up.
Partial credit goes to the mods who were fed up with dealing with 5+ mattreports a day and just gave up.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,733
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If you're consistently getting bothered by what other people are doing online in an obscure community you volunteered to be a part of, maybe it's time to re-evaluate a few things about your life. Just a thought.
If you're consistently getting bothered by what other people are doing online in an obscure community you volunteered to be a part of, maybe it's time to re-evaluate a few things about your life. Just a thought.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,736
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,738
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,739
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,740
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,743
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,745
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,746
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,747
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,750
@previous (H)
I don't know about you but I've been talking about Marsden. You sure you're doing alright?
I don't know about you but I've been talking about Marsden. You sure you're doing alright?
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,768
Here's one of the articles I used in my law school presentation when I was talking about the media coverage of the trial:
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/14/us/around-the-nation-ex-official-in-louisiana-indicted-in-oil-deal.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/14/us/around-the-nation-ex-official-in-louisiana-indicted-in-oil-deal.html
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,770
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,771
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 59 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,773
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 23 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,775
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,778
@1,215,618 (H)
@1,215,662 (H)
@1,215,738 (H)
@1,215,745 (H)
@1,215,771 (H)
Why do you keep posting that image?
@1,215,662 (H)
@1,215,738 (H)
@1,215,745 (H)
@1,215,771 (H)
Why do you keep posting that image?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 3 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,216,145
@1,215,768 (F)
> Here's one of the articles I used in my law school presentation when I was talking about the media coverage of the trial:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/14/us/around-the-nation-ex-official-in-louisiana-indicted-in-oil-deal.html
Interesting article, thanks for posting!
> Here's one of the articles I used in my law school presentation when I was talking about the media coverage of the trial:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/14/us/around-the-nation-ex-official-in-louisiana-indicted-in-oil-deal.html
Interesting article, thanks for posting!
