We are jumping the gun here.
If you notice the entities are different.
The money is from 'UBS Securities LLC' (the US branch of UBS's investment banking arm, UBS Securities).
The Chinese entity is 'UBS Securities Co Ltd'. It's a different branch, under the same global bank.
It's like saying that anyone who has received money from an international branch of J.P. Morgan has links to the Chinese Communist Party because J.P. Morgan also has a branch in China.
Unless the transaction itself has an explicit link to the Chinese branch specifically then it doesn't mean anything.
He has an ownership stake in a carbon credits exchange.
So he has a direct financial interest in forcing companies to purchase carbon offsets.
It's a huge scam, and basically provides government with the power to tax the lifeblood of the economy, whilst simultaneously enabling them to throttle industry by controlling how much energy that companies can consume.
We absolutely can not let this happen, it is without a doubt a Chinese led scheme, and a very clever one at that.
Kerry is either a useful idiot blinded by profits, or knowingly subversive. I suspect he is the former, but I may be wrong.
The trouble is UBS is a large international bank.
So in all likelihood they have a 'UBS Securities' branch in every major country on the planet, of which they logically have a stake.
It's not clear that there is a link between the US entity and the Chinese entity beyond being under the same bank.
The smoking gun would be if the funds came from UBS Securities Co LTD.
That's the trouble though. The entity listed in the SEC documents is `UBS Securities LLC with a US listed address. It is a US-based subsidiary of UBS bank.
As Lin's tweet lays out, UBS Securities is listed as a minority owner of the Chinese UBS Securities CO LTD, it's a different entity, which happens to be under the same bank.
So in essence the funds came from a US subsidiary of UBS bank, which also happens to have a minority ownership stake in the Chinese investment banking arm of UBS (It may also be also be another international branch of UBS Securities which owns the stake in the Chinese entity).
As much as I want to see a smoking gun here, UBS is a very large bank, it's not at all unusual to me that Dominion received funds from the US investment banking arm of UBS, which also happens to have minority stakes in its foreign investment banking arms.
What would be highly suspicious is if the funds in the SEC filings actually came from UBS Securities CO LTD.
We need to be careful not to look like amateurs here. I could be wrong, but this is how it looks to me.
Lin should be careful on this one.
The SEC filings he is referring to shows a $400M transaction from UBS SECURITIES LLC (which appears to be a US branch of UBS's investment banking arm.
I believe Lin is confusing it with 'UBS SECURITIES CO. LIMITED' which is a Chinese-based and mostly CCP owned Chinese investment bank under UBS.
I hope I am wrong here.
I'm not certain, but it appears they may have the entities mixed.
UBS Securities LLC seems to be the NY-based broker-dealer arm for UBS bank.
UBS Securities Co. Limited is the CCP-linked Chinese investment bank.
That being said, almost all mentions of 'UBS Securities' online with relation to UBS do seem to be referring to the Chinese entity (i.e the Wikipedia page).
Something else that is interesting are the number of Chinese-named individuals listed as board members on the Bloomberg page. One even shares the name of the mayor of Chengdu (a major Chinese city).
I don't disagree with the points you have made. That is why I said I can't be certain it is him, we should definitely exercise caution.
But to say that it "obviously isn't" him is just not true. It very plausibly could be is the point that I am making.
The doom faggots claiming "iTs cLeArLy nOt hIm" are likely gaslighting operatives.
I can't say for certain that it is him, but the name clearly matches the badge, and the face/body type clearly matches the individual in the video.
Any suggestion that it "clearly doesn't" is utterly ridiculous and likely subversive.
This Pede gets it.
This is not a "rich vs poor" battle, the true enemy is the poisoning of the free market by the State.
The enemy are the slimy corporatists and the corrupt politicians who collaborate to cement their wealth.
There are plenty of rich who had to work extremely hard to get where they are, and who disdain corrupt state intervention.
Trump's core business is hospitality, the scamdemic COVID laws against hospitality businesses was a direct attack on his net worth.
Berate the commiefaggots with shitpost emails and sign them up for as much spam as possible [email protected]
Taxes do not touch the rich. With enough wealth all of your assets are offshore, and you don't earn "income", so income tax hikes do nothing.
That is why so many support Dems.
Higher taxes decimate the middle and upper-middle classes, they cement the 1% in place and make it harder for the 99% to gain any upward mobility.
That's why the richlist in places like Europe rarely changes.
UBS Securities LLC is partnered with the state owned Chicom entities in their ownership of UBS Securities Co Ltd, in that entity the Chicoms absolutely have control.
But what I have not seen is anything to suggest Chinese ownership of UBS Securities LLC, the US based entity that initiated the transaction.