by oldedude on November 18, 2022 3:01 pm
I have to LAUGH! This is nothing less than hilarious!
In one post, Curt says that SARs are "useless" and not reliable since they're only used in 4% of the SARs.
And the ALL OF A SUDDEN! OMFG! THIS "PERSON" IS "found guilty of helping to funnel illegal foreign campaign contributions from a Russian national into former President Trump's 2016 campaign... This is how you make a case of political corruption. No hair-on-fire unproven allegations. No vague conspiracy theory ramblings. Just quiet, behind the scenes investigation, connecting of the dots and a prosecution that proves its case."
THIS, AFTER HE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED THE USE OF BANKING INFORMATION IN THE pedojoe and pedojr CASE!
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with the left. So curt, which one is it? Is it useful and part of a case? Does it transfer in to "evidence"? OR is is information that's never used and is not relevant to an investigation?
I know that all you're going to do is attack me. I got that. I won't expect anything else from you. It's just how low you go to do it. You need to make up your mind.
by Curt_Anderson on November 18, 2022 3:24 pm
I never attack you. I merely attempt to disabuse you of your misconceptions.
In the Russian money funneling into Trump's campaign case there is no reported mention of SARs. But it doesn't matter. Citing a bank source, I pointed out that miniscule number of SARs lead to convictions. That's a miniscule number, not a zero number.