By: J.J. O’Hara
This is Part 13 of a series of articles that I am writing about the pending prosecution of Frank Parlato (Frank’s trial is scheduled to start on May 19th). As usual, readers are encouraged to ask questions – which I will endeavor to answer on a timely basis.
*****
In my last post about this case, I reviewed some of the evidence that was in the 21-page document Frank’s attorneys turned over on March 17, 2015 to then-U.S. Assistant Attorney Anthony M. Bruce to refute his allegations that Frank had defrauded Larry Reger, who was one of his business partners.
When Bruce was confronted with that evidence, he did what any ill-intentioned and unprincipled prosecutor would do: he ignored the things that he couldn’t explain away – and he came up with new charges to replace the ones that could no longer be prosecuted.
Above all else, Bruce was a man of his word – and when he promised to indict somebody, there was nothing that would stop him.
Certainly not a few inconvenient facts that proved Frank had not committed any crimes.
Today, we’ll look at some of the evidence that Frank’s attorneys provided in that same 21-page document to prove that Frank had also not defrauded Clare and Sara Bronfman.
Although the Bronfman-related allegations in Frank’s case were subsequently dropped by federal prosecutors just prior to Clare being indicted for various NXIVM-related crimes – and after sister Sara fled the country to avoid having the same thing happen to her – it’s important to examine how Bruce originally refused to dismiss these charges even after Frank’s attorneys produced evidence to prove they were untrue.
Anthony M. Bruce is not a man who would let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a promised prosecution.
*****
The Bronfman Allegations Against Frank Parlato
The Bronfman sisters’ allegations centered around their hiring of Frank to investigate what was going on with a real estate development project in Los Angeles, CA in which they had already invested $26 million.
The project was the brainchild of that former options trading savant, Keith Raniere – who, as unbelievable as it may sound, knew even less about real estate development than he did about options trading.
Under Raniere’s guidance, Clare and Sara were to provide all the capital for the real estate development project – which was being managed by Yuri Plyam.
And per the plan that Raniere had put together, the ownership interests in the project were set up as follows: 1/3 to Plyam; 1/3 to the Bronfman sisters; and 1/3 to Nancy Salzman (Presumably, Nancy was just a “beard” for Keith’s ownership interest in the project since he never liked to put his name on anything).
But, in typical Raniere fashion, he kept putting off having Clare and Sara sign the “Operating Agreement” – which meant that on paper, they owned nothing at all.
(Raniere used this same ploy when I was hired to provide consulting services to NXIVM – and with several other consultants that he hired during the 15 months I worked there).
But in the midst of the real estate development project – which the Bronfman sisters had kept hidden from their father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr. – Raniere was suddenly dealing with a new problem.
The Trustee overseeing the trust funds that Clare and Sara had inherited was pressing Raniere to sign a “Promissory Note” for the $65 million he had “borrowed’ from them to cover his losses in the commodities market.
Since he had no intention of taking on a $65-million liability, Raniere decided to change his explanation for why those losses had happened.
Originally, he had told the Bronfman sisters that it was their father who had caused the losses by rigging the commodities markets against the “100% guaranteed, can’t miss” algorithm that he had developed.
But with the Trustee – and Edgar’s accountants and lawyers – closing in on him, Raniere had to come up with a new explanation.
And so it was that Yuri Plyam became the new scapegoat for the commodities losses.
And if Plyam had cheated Raniere on the commodities trades – as Raniere was now claiming – then he was likely cheating Clare and Sara on the real estate deal.
Frank Parlato was already working as a publicist for NXIVM – and he went out to Los Angeles to sort things out. What he found is that Keith had bungled the real estate investment much like he bungled the commodities investment.
And so it was that Frank became involved in the real estate development project in Los Angeles.
Per the agreed-upon terms of his arrangement with the Bronfman sisters, Frank was to receive one-third of the “net profits” of the project (It was estimated that when the project was completed, it would generate $10-$15 million of profits).
In anticipation of that outcome, the Bronfman sisters made an “advance payment” of $1 million to Frank (That payment was to be credited against his future one-third interest in the “net profits” of the project).
As stated in the 21-page document, “Approximately one month after Mr. Parlato began working for the Bronfmans, he and his attorney Paul Grenga negotiated a Letter of Intent with the Bronfmans’ [representative] Kristin Keeffe [and Keith Raniere]…. The Letter of Intent included a provision paying Mr. Parlato $1 million in advance against compensation Mr. Parlato would earn in the future” (Keeffe served as the “Legal Liaison” for the company – and, in that capacity, supervised all the attorneys who worked for the company).
Despite the fact that he succeeded in documenting the Bronfman sisters’ ownership interest in the Los Angeles properties [$26 million in assets] and eliminated Nancy Salzman’s ownership – bringing the Bronfman’s up to a two-thirds interest – instead of one third – a gain for them of more than $8 million – Raniere ordered them to fire him after Frank started asking questions about the $65 million they had lost in the commodities market.
Frank intended to find out the details of how and where the commodities money had been invested. No one who raised such questions was welcomed in Raniereland.
Raniere convinced Clare and Sara that Frank had claimed expenses that he had not actually incurred – and that he should be fired as the Manager of the Precision Development real estate project. He also convinced them that they should demand that Frank repay the entire $1 million that they had originally advanced to him as part of the funds he would earn when the Los Angeles properties were sold.
Frank responded by providing an accounting of every dime of the Bronfmans’ money that he had spent to secure their $26 million investment.
But that was not enough to get him back in their good graces.
The Master had spoken – and the servants were required to obey.
*****
Frank’s Attorneys Offered Conclusive Proof That He Did Not Defraud the Bronfmans
In the March 17, 2015 document, Frank’s attorneys provided a copy of his November 10, 2008 email to his accountant. In that email, Frank explained that although he believed that the $1 million should be rightfully deemed “earned income”, the Bronfman sisters were now claiming it was a “loan” – and he asked Aloian how he should treat it on his income tax return for 2008.
Frank’s attorneys also provided evidence that Frank had asked his attorneys to prepare a lawsuit against the Bronfman sisters to settle the dispute regarding the $1 million and other monies that he was owed by them.
They had, after all, breached the contract.
Before Frank could file his lawsuit, the Bronfmans had William F. Savino filed a lawsuit against him.
Savino then worked with Anthony M. Bruce to bring criminal charges against Frank – and as part of that arrangement, Clare perjured herself before a grand jury (For some inexplicable reason, Clare has never been charged with that crime).
Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce was given unequivocal evidence that Clare perjured herself in the grand jury (She had sworn under oath exactly the opposite of what she had sworn in the Savino-led civil suit) – but Bruce suborned her perjury and refused to correct the record with the grand jury.
Despite the evidence that Frank’s attorneys offered, Bruce pushed full steam ahead with his indictment of Frank based, in large part, of Frank’s alleged defrauding of the Bronfman sisters.
Having promised to indict Frank on charges that he defrauded the Bronfman sisters, Bruce was committed to following through on that promise even though he knew Frank never did that – and even though he knew that the dispute was already being handled via a civil lawsuit.
If nothing else, Anthony M. Bruce is a man of his word.
*****
Next Post Will Look at Charges That Frank Intended to Defraud the IRS
In the next post, I will delve into Anthony M. Bruce’s contention that Frank intended to defraud the IRS – and the refutational evidence that Frank’s attorneys provided to Bruce in their March 17, 2015 document.
After that, we’ll take a look at the events that took place over the next eight months as Bruce continued to try and find a basis for indicting Frank.
What bothers me most about this case is not the fact that Bruce eventually indicted Frank even though he had been provided clear and convincing evidence that Frank had not committed any crime.
When a person has been sufficiently motivated to do bad things, bad things get done.
What really bothers me about this case is that even after Bruce retired from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, his successors have allowed this travesty to continue.
*****
Previous posts in this series can be accessed at:
Part 1: The Buffalo News Raises Questions About Frank Parlato’s Case – More Detailed Analysis Needed
Part 2: The Convoluted History of U.S. v. Parlato Began With Bronfman Sisters
Part 3: The Federal Case Against Frank Parlato – a Prosecution in Search of a Crime
Part 4: What Are the Charges in U.S. v. Parlato — and What Do They Mean?
Part 5: The Conman Cometh – Schmuel Schmueli – Who, Combined With the Bronfmans, Led to Parlato’s Indictment
Part 6: Fate Brings Conman Shmuel Shmueli Into Frank Parlato’s Life
Part 7: Why Frank Parlato Established Several Companies and Multiple Bank Accounts
Part 9: The Persecution of Frank Parlato: What Have We Learned so Far
Part 10: Where’s the Beef? Feds Will Try to Convict Parlato on Insinuations Rather Than Facts
Part 11: Feds Refused to Accept Proof of Frank Parlato’s Innocence – Pushed Ahead With Indictment
In reading the docket for this case, it shows that Frank’s attorneys sought “disclosure and/or in camera review of the Grand Jury minutes” which was denied. You can read that order and see the docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5304724/united-states-v-parlato/
It doesn’t look like Frank appealed this decision (although he did object), but I might be reading this wrong or the docket could be incomplete.
What does this ruling mean in regard to the case? Is Frank still allowed to make that argument in trial or will the judge not allow that to be entered into evidence?
I would say that Frank didn’t get his money’s worth with this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nywd.105326/gov.uscourts.nywd.105326.84.0.pdf and may have led to him changing lawyers.
Frank or joe,
Sorry about the double post. Technical difficulties!
I think it’s important information to help people understand how Frank is getting screwed by the prosecutor.
* Bangkok & Anyone else trying to understand the Grand Jury System of Abuse, The DOJ prosecutors office played the Grand Jury game of charging Frank Parlato with various crimes over and over, until a subsequent Grand Jury indicted Frank Parlato.
* In language you will understand “the prosecutor kept throwing shit on the wall until something stuck”.
* ************************************ The next 2 simple paragraphs will help you gain some perspective, clarity and knowledge on how prosecutors can abuse and use the Grand Jury system: 1. Grand juries and double jeopardy
* The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so. 2. If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a “no bill.” However, even if a grand jury doesn’t indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.
* *********************************************** Bangkok if you are feeling extra-scholarly the article below will give you some greater understanding: Restoring Legitimacy: The Grand Jury as the Prosecutor’s Administrative Agency
* Restoring Legitimacy: The Grand Jury as the Prosecutor’s Administrative Agency for Abuse. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/02/restoring-legitimacy/
“F–k the Facts – Full Steam Ahead With False Indictment of Frank Parlato ”
Well Parlato is an expert in F–king facts so why should he be protected against this?
Keith Raniere is such a “genius” that he even lost money investing in Los Angeles real estate.
Even with the real estate crash in 2008, all one had to do was hold on to the land long enough and it would have turned a profit.
According to Frank, if I recall, they even did stupid things like preparing lots for construction by spending money driving pilings, which were then left to sit and rust until until the value of the work was completely lost. They apparently still own some of the properties, but mistakes like that, on top of costs like paying more than a decade of property taxes in some cases, have probably largely negated any gains in property values. See, for instance:
https://frankreport.com/2018/08/21/financial-disclosure-did-clare-bronfman-neglect-to-tell-court-about-these-la-properties/
And yet Raniere is sometimes theorized to have masterminded a murder so cunningly staged as a suicide that it fooled seasoned professional law enforcement investigators, and a jury that reviewed the case.
Interesting stuff.
If Aloian provided Frank with advice (or even a simple email) advising Frank not to claim the money as income for 2008, then Frank has little to worry about at trial —- since that would prove he wasn’t ‘secreting’ money from the IRS or making illegal wire transfers to impede the IRS, nor was he engaging in fraudulent activity to defraud the government.
That would prove he was acting on the advice of counsel, which would eliminate all ‘criminal intent’ even if such advice proved to be wrong. Criminal intent is different from winning or losing a civil lawsuit.
If Aloian (or another attorney) is still alive and is willing to testify for Frank then it’s game over right there, Frank wins easily.
Likewise, if Frank has emails/documents/agreements (even if they’re unsigned) to prove that he ‘believed’ he was cut into the future profits for a 1/3 interest, then that would eliminate every charge that he was trying to defraud any private citizens by using the Fedwire system to route money thru multiple bank accounts.
If Frank had any logical basis to believe the $1 million ‘advance’ was his money (as part of his future 1/3 interest in the land deal profits) then there’s no criminal ‘intent’ to defraud anybody, regardless of whether he obfuscated the location of the money using many different wire transfers and bank accounts.
Wiring money thru many different bank accounts would only be illegal if he was trying to hide the money from the government (or) if he had no reasonable basis to believe that the $1 million dollar ‘advance’ was part of his future profits (i.e., it would only be illegal if Frank had stolen the money and had no logical basis to believe it was his).
Clearly, it sounds like Frank has evidence to counter both such charges.
In fact, it doesn’t even matter if Frank truly had a 1/3 interest in the land deal, it only matters that Frank has proof that he ‘believed’ he did. Frank’s ‘belief’ is the only thing that matters when criminal intent is involved.
That’s why I think Joe’s not telling us everything.
The judge would have already tossed the entire case if it were as simple as Joe is claiming.
Plus no US Attorney would go to trial in May if Frank’s team was gonna pounce on them so easily.
Bang,
I understand your skepticism – but everything that I’ve reported about this case is 100% accurate and I have not left anything out (There’s a lot more for me to expose about this case – and it’s going to continue getting worse for the feds with each succeeding post). That was the arrangement that I made with Frank before I agreed to look into the pending charges against him: i.e., I would review all the available source documents myself – and report on them as I saw fit. He does not have editorial rights with regard to this series of posts.
As I have already said, the most appalling aspect of this case is NOT that Anthony Bruce manipulated the system in order to get Frank indicted (That sort of prosecutorial misconduct happens all the time). It’s that James P. Kennedy, the new U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York (WDNY) – and the members of his staff – have not already stepped in to stop this travesty.
At this point, my hope is that someone at the DOJ headquarters in Washington, DC gets wind of this case – and orders that it be closed in the interest of justice. That won’t look good for Mr. Kennedy but if he won’t do his job, someone has to.
Your point about the continued prosecution being appalling is very well taken, Mr. O’Hara. Would it not be better for Mr. Kennedy’s reputation to drop this proceeding now and stop throwing money at it? Is there any such thing as malicious prosecution? It does look like Mr Parlato didn’t do anything wrong but these people keep pursuing him like a dog with a bone. I applaud him for not backing down and having his day (or many days) in court.
It’s a complicated scenario – especially because the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney who were involved in Frank’s case are no longer there. If Kennedy had dropped the prosecution as soon as he came into office, he might have been able to point the finger of failure at them. Instead, he dropped the Bronfman charges – and continued the prosecution – which means that he now owns the case.
Losing a case in court can be a career-changing event for all involved. But how Kennedy backs away from this without getting blamed is going to take some real finesse.
If there were any real “justice” in the DOJ, they would simply dismiss the charges – and reimburse Frank for his legal expenses to date. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.
It is complicated but it is too true that pride cometh before the fall. We can, but hope, Mr Parlato gets a fair trial and is exonerated.
Dennis K. Burke, (Bangkok),
The author of this post recalls you one time sneering over the phone at the legal concept of “advice of counsel” in a complete rejection of its well established history in law. It was as if you were a teenager…which of course is an accurate analysis of your maturity level.
Remembering how you rejected the legal concept of advice of counsel when it didn’t serve your self-interest, it’s so nice of you to encourage Frank here with such a defense.
Gosh, have you turned over a new leaf?
Stopped being a cynical, always-negative minded sarcastic bastard for a moment?
Or are you kissing up again, as you usually do when you’re trying to temporarily win a friend for some self-serving reason?
I mean, we can see it quite clearly in your “out of character” helpful post written with an extra serving of “Look at me! I understand government prosecutors because I used to be one!” (Until he had to quit, because he was caught doing what he does best — lying and scrambling to cover what were his latest round of intentional misdeeds, at the time)
Let’s see…you’ve been a fake friend to people for most of your life, and then you used your political positions to traffic weapons with Mexican cartels for profit…which led to a cozy business relationship with the Salinas political family of Mexico. And now you’re on to giving Frank Parlato legal advice!
Mighty big of you, Mr. former United States Attorney. That’s true pro bono (online) community service. The University of Arizona must be proud!
As for all this talk about intent, Dennis…
How about the period of time when you and Sandweg knowingly helped Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere commit crimes of immigration fraud?
“Based on United States Department of Homeland Security records, M.F. was denied entry into the United States and her B-2 visa was cancelled in January 2016, on suspicion that M.F. intended to immigrate to the United States. A January 2, 2016 letter submitted on behalf of M.F. by Dennis Burke, another attorney with Frontier Solutions, represented that M.F. “has no intent to remain unlawfully in the United States” and that she continues to live in St. Luis Potosi, Mexico where she “enjoys a large network of family and friends, including her mother and sister who live nearby . . . In fact, the government’s investigation has revealed that M.F. had been living in the Albany, New York area for nearly a decade as part of the Nxivm community and as an intimate partner of Raniere.” (Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 256 Filed 12/28/18 p.5)
And Sandweg even invoking his former title of DHS “general counsel” in order to attempt to get the mother of Vanguard’s kid in to the U.S. on false pretenses?
“. . .the letter, which was addressed to the United States Embassy in Mexico, Mr. Sandweg identified himself as the “former Acting General Counsel for DHS and Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” and stated that M.F. had entered the United States to care for one of her “closest personal friends, Pamela Cafritz” and that M.F. “poses no threat to immigrate to the United States.” (p.6)
But of course, the KNOWLEDGE that you, Dennis K. Burke, and your law partner John Sandweg were engaging in illegal acts didn’t stop you and him from assisting Clare and Keith with their schemes…
“. . .John [Sandweg] feels there is a high risk of either denial or denial with a ban for fraud.” (p.7)
Now that’s teamwork!! Apparently, true to form, you even put poor Sandweg out in front of the cameras while you hid from the press, and you left him hanging out in front in the factual history of your schemes, to take the worst hits in case anyone gets busted!
Way to throw another “friend” under the bus, while serving your own selfish agenda, like so often in your established history!!
and Dennis,
After he’s nailed by the feds for participating in the Raniere-Bronfman schemes you intentionally orchestrated with your evil mind, I bet Sandweg will wish he was back where you found him, when he was only doing ethically underhanded work that may have still been legal considering the attorney rules, such as defending pedophiles and murderers.
Government investigators who monitor the Frankreport blog: Did you guys forget about this article?
https://frankreport.com/2018/12/31/burke-and-sandweg-two-high-profile-obama-lawyers-represent-nxivm-in-suspicious-visa-dealings/
Sheesh.
Anyone who didn’t know better might call Burke and Sandweg a couple of chuckleheads.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/fast-and-furious-probe-shows-burke-called-doj-officials-chuckleheads/2012/02/17/gIQAZ1U1JR_blog.html
I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe that Bangkok is Dennis Burke. What would Burke’s motive to write about so many non-Bronfman topics. Why would he care for instance to waste his time writing about, for instance, Heidi? But of course I could be wrong. I really do not know who Bangkok is and I am not trying to find out. I do find Bangkok amusing, even when he criticizes me.
To mislead readers who he really is? Besides, Hutchinson deserves it. We also don’t know whether the person using the name Bangkok is always the same one.
I think Bangcock is NiceGuy’s mother-in-law.
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, Frank, to say you find Bangkok “amusing” — even featuring his posts — while admonishing commentors not to attack each other.
Bangkok is the most toxic troll on this site, clearly a misogynist, possibly a malignant narcissist and I’ve done my best to not cower or let him “punk” me in hopes of clearing the way for sincere, authentic voices to participate in what this blog could be without the Bangkok’s, the Schlock’s, the Flowers, the trolls that quash free speech through humiliation and other juvenile, sadistic tricks.
I don’t know or care who Bangkok is but giving a voice to anyone who bashes everyone (except Mexican elites) with a special focus on those who make the most valuable, insider contributions is the same as selectively quashing the first amendment rights you claim to hold so dear.
Bangkok is also a stalker, judging from his posts that detail my whereabouts and situation — c’mon, how else does he know what my pool guy said — and/or in touch with my ex, Jeff Apple, if it’s not him.
I never thought he could seriously be Dennis Burke but if he is, someone better limit the privacy invasion rights of disgraced, former Federal officials on U.S. citizens pronto bc my disabled son’s rights have been severely compromised by this ass clown’s espionage antics and lies.
In fact, since Jeff began giving Dylan psychotropic meds as a chemical restraint for alleged behaviors in my forced absence, Dylan’s life is being put at risk.
Apparently, putting innocent lives at stake is something Mr. Burke, likewise, doesn’t mind doing,
What’s so amusing about that?
Bangkok & Anyone else trying to understand the Grand Jury System of Abuse,
The DOJ prosecutors office played the Grand Jury game of charging Frank Parlato with various crimes over and over, until a subsequent Grand Jury indicted Frank Parlato.
In language you will understand “the prosecutor kept throwing shit on the wall until something stuck”.
************************************
The next 2 simple paragraphs will help you gain some perspective, clarity and knowledge on how prosecutors can abuse and use the Grand Jury system:
1. Grand juries and double jeopardy
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so.
2. If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a “no bill.” However, even if a grand jury doesn’t indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.
***********************************************
Bangkok if you are feeling extra-scholarly the article below will give you some greater understanding:
Restoring Legitimacy: The Grand Jury as the Prosecutor’s Administrative Agency
Restoring Legitimacy: The Grand Jury as the Prosecutor’s Administrative Agency for Abuse.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/02/restoring-legitimacy/
Fact is you have fabricated lies to fit the bill. And you got the million to pay the taxes from the cult. And was suppose to pay the IRS. AND YOU KNOW THIS. You chose to not pay the taxes and to hide it in shell accounts. You just saying it was ernest Money for future endeavors is poppy cock. And you know it. Where is this letter, text or email to prove this? Where is your proof an email a letter? That you were advised by council? Actions speak louder then words. Which is proven by the shell accounts. Your already cursing your self by lieing. Maybe you should of took the plea deal. As the jury will wonder even if you say was a advance not a loan. Then you look weak as you dont address the issue. Loan or advance either one does not give you the right to not report it what so ever. And you leave these facts foggy.The jury will see right thru this. Your only looking at it thru your eyes. But anyone who is bias will see what you did leaving a huge gap for trying to avoid paying the IRS. A honest man would of reported it. Not make up excuses. With no proof in writing from council. And no proof from cult was ernest monies for future earnings. If this was true you would have proof, as cult says other wise. Your actions speak louder then your words. Do you have proof from your lawyers Mr. Parlato . Get it. As no lawyer in the world would advise you to not pay your taxes and not report it,not a one. If you think you can just say my lawyer advised me and that’s good enough well it’s not. Very weak. And you already have a history of fighting and avoiding paying the IRS already. Who advised you dont you think there going to ask you this. Leaving you looking like a liar and a cheat. Just a little friendly advise.
Get the lawyers statement on record advising you. Show proof was ernest money not a loan. Not just say it. Weak
To show how little you know about this case – all charges stemming from the million were dropped by the feds.
LMFAO! That painting is F**K*IG hilarious….WEE Willy with his wee little baby feet. Marie thanks for the laugh.
“What really bothers me about this case is that even after Bruce retired from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, his successors have allowed this travesty to continue.”
100% AGREE!!!
The leftist swamp is deep in New York and Parlato got a shit pot full of it. It is slowly draining but sadly New York will be one of those last places to be plunged and all the shit finally unclogged.
Anonymous, why do you believe the “leftist swamp” is responsible? Do you think Frank’s charges are related to politics?
Duh, flowers.
Girl Scout Cookies
January 23, 2020 at 7:38 pm,
The reference is to Joe O’Hara.
Have you bothered to read anything Joe has written? This tops the list of the most inane and obtuse comment you’ve made and that’s quite the accomplishment considering the quality of your comments.
You have to forgive flowers. She thinks little Justy is a savvy politician who is making the world a better place, while Orange man bad.
Who’s Joe?
I have read some of the articles, and while Joe does mention that many of the people involved in prosecuting Frank are Democrats, but I dont think I’ve seen is an explanation as to WHY this would be politically motivated.
I understand that is the insinuation Joe seems to making, but was an actual reason ever given? IMO, implying that the “leftist swamp” is out to get him, is just feeding the alt-right conspiracy theorists.
Implying that the “leftist swamp” is out to get him, is just feeding the alt-right conspiracy theorists.
Too funny alt-right conspiracy theorists
Flowergirl, have you seen your fellow left-wing nut conspiracy kooks in the US House lead by Shitstain Schiff, Nadless Nadler and the boozer Pelosi?
Flowers wants everyone else to do her homework for her. She wants an explanation – there is no explanation – you have to extrapolate the intent through reading and then critical thinking. Can you do that? I think not. 😐 You have one message and it’s on repeat – left is good and right is bad. That’s not how the world works, Toots. There is good and there is bad on both sides of the political spectrum. Very little in this world is black or white. It’s mainly composed of different shades of grey.
Your comments make you out to be someone who can’t be bothered actual think about anything in a deep way. Perhaps that’s outside your capabilities. 😐
The question has not been answered…. the answers have been implied by the promotion of baseless conspiracy theories.
What I’m hearing from you trolls is something like this:
NXIVM was part of the cult of ” leftist, pedophile, baby-eating, Godless Democrat monsters who want to take over the world” and because Frank “exposed” Raniere, these devil-worshipping, evil, Mk-Utra-weilding baby-killers are now going to unfairly prosecute Frank, just to shut him up…..
Or maybe I’m wrong and that’s not what you mean at all.
What I’m hearing from you trolls is something like this:
NXIVM was part of the cult of ” leftist, pedophile, baby-eating, Godless Democrat monsters who want to take over the world” and because Frank “exposed” Raniere, these devil-worshipping, evil, Mk-Utra-weilding baby-killers are now going to unfairly prosecute Frank, just to shut him up….., writes Flowers.
This comment, alone, clearly illustrates your inability to read and disseminate the salient facts from the information presented. And who, may I ask, are you referring to as trolls? Is everyone who calls you out on your ignorance a troll? Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll?
Yes I do flowers. As matter of fact I know it is.. Question is, why to you constantly rush to defend these leftist bastards? What have these evil bastards ever done to make your life better?
And still no answer.
You guys imply that you know the answer, but yet you can’t provide an answer….(but you are very quick with insults)
I guess I’ll have to assume you dont actually have an explanation.
Flowers, the question has been answered many times. You are too dense to see it. I also see that you were asked a question and, of course, ignored it. Can’t explain your own irrationality? As you and anonyfaker constantly prove, liberal leftists are both hypocritical and mentally disordered.
Mary.
People like you who insult other posters (as you just called me stupid by claiming I cant read or understand facts…) are considered to be trolls by most people.
There are many such posters on Frank Report- for example the ones who constantly insult muslims and gay people, I consider them to be trolls, too.
If you don’t agree with my opinion that alt-right conspiracy theorists are spinning this to suit their agenda, then state your reasons why you believe otherwise instead of just insulting me.
If you actually want to see the swamp in the Albany area drained, you have to address the reality of the bi-partisan nature of it.
When NXIVM was initially seeking to influence and corrupt the system, was during the Pataki (R) administration. That was probably why they went to people like Parlato and Stone, D’Amato, state senator Bruno (R, who the Bronfmans gave more more donations than Clinton), and so on – along with some Democrats as well. To this day, NXIVM’s corporate counsel is the law firm of former Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Yes, slick, there is some bi-partisan..pigs feeding at the same trough. However, you rush to constantly defend an incredibly corrupt democrat regime in New York which mirrors the national and California scene among others. By constantly saying it is completely bipartisan shows you to be the absolute phony you are. You do the same to religion typically pointing out Christian or other religious hypocrisy with of course the exception of your own Islamic cult.
Pay attention, Slick, the evil corrupt Democrat Party cult is slowly being revealed and soon to be dismantled.
Anonymaker,
Do not point out that Alan Dershowitz one of the famous attorneys defending Donald Trump is linked to Jeffery Epstein more so than Bill Clinton. Dershowitz has been fingered by 2 victims now. Dershowitz was a friend and frequent guest of Epstein.
Epstein, Clinton, Dershowitz, and Trump have all drank and eaten with one another over the years.
Absolutely no connections to one another.
LMAO
Where is the 21 page document?