Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.’s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder’s narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his “lawyer” Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the “dog ate my homework” quality of Browder’s self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder’s narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected turn when Nekrasov’s research kept turning up contradictions to Browder’s storyline, which began to look more and more like a corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder’s company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder’s legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin’s retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump’s son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya’s U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov’s blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder’s lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past.
Their stand wasn’t exactly a profile in courage. “We’re not going to allow them not to show the film,” said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. “We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen.”
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times added that “A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides.” Heaven forbid!
So, Nekrasov’s documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary’s discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.
After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov’s documentary Russian “agit-prop” and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder’s misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using “facts highly selectively” and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin’s “campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act.”
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov’s original idea for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder’s self-exculpatory story to a skeptic. But the Post’s deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: “The film won’t grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky’s family.
“We don’t worry that Mr. Nekrasov’s film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions.”
The Post’s gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.
The Post’s satisfaction that Nekrasov’s documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media’s duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about “Russian propaganda” and “fake news” with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google’s First Draft Coalition deem “false.”
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft’s job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov’s documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov’s film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post’s editors were right in their expectation that “The film won’t grab a wide audience.” Instead, it has become a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call “the other side of the story.” The film now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Very interesting. Can’t help but be curious about this film, where might one watch it?
Why doesn’t Nekrasov simply post the movie to YouTube / WikiLeaks / any other website for people to see for free, so that they can make up their own minds?
That’d be great. Let’s hope it happens.
Skip Scott — your arrogance, condescending attitude and 6th grade schoolyard taunt tells the tale, yes? Oh .. I’m a retired 4 star admiral.
Retired 4 star Admiral- wow! Good for you. Most people here post rational, informative comments. Calling something in it’s entirety “BUNK”, without presenting a coherent rational argument refuting its contents, is something I would describe as arrogant behavior. You see yourself as “above” having to present an argument to support your premise. When I stated that you “missed the point” when saying there is no way to stop something from appearing on the internet, I was referring to the fact that the pro-Browder people only seek to limit viewership of the film as much as possible. If you think they haven’t been successful, please provide me with a link where I can view the film for free without providing credit card info. If you care to argue any other points, I’ll be glad to give a thoughtful reply. BTW, my nickname Skip, does not imply that I was a ship’s captain, it is just a life-long nickname. I was only the lowly radio operator. They call us “Sparky” aboard ship.
Reading these comments ts is amazing. It’s like listening to a bunch of Lakers fans talking about how great the refs calls were during the Kings/Lakers playoffs game that took the Lakers to the NBA championships. Once you decided that anything that disagrees with the mainstream is inherently braver, and more likely to be true, then everything that disagrees with the mainstream seems braver and more true.
Just like peer review science, with isn’t inherently correct, mainstream news reporting is generally much more likely to be correct.
I MISS THE POINT? Look at the replies here. Their is enough commentary from ABE and SKIP SCOTT to write a couple volumes regarding this topic. And then their is these folks’ articulation of the subject matter. “Deep State”? You are kidding, right? The content of the replies and the volume of the replies from ABE and SKIP SCOTT show me they sure don’t seem to be just anonymous replies by random readers taking a hike on the internet one day. Talk about a “deep state”. Who do you REALLY work for?
I am a retired merchant seaman currently caregiving an elderly uncle. You will find that there are regular commenters here such as Abe and myself. Realist, Joe Tedesky, Herman, Kiza, mike k, Jessica K, F.G. Sanford, Sam F, and many more. We come to this site often and comment here. You are correct in the sense that we are not random visitors. We come here regularly because we like to read the many great writers that write for this site, and enjoy each others company on the comment section. If you don’t like it here, Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer will be glad to take you back.
actually Rachel Maddow has been very good on facts about this case. Don’t know why you denigrate her. She’s not a merchant marine but she is a Rhodes Scholar, studied at Oxford and has a PhD from Stanford in political science. That should count for something even to the most cynical.
Bill Clinton is also a Rhodes scholar, and I’ve heard he does the Sunday NYT crossword in pen. He is still a liar and a scoundrel, and brought us NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagal, to the ruin of our middle class and economic stability. Furthermore, George W Bush was a Yale graduate. I know high school drop-outs smarter than him. Excuse me if I don’t fawn over Ms. Maddow, and accept her arguments solely on the basis of her pedigree.
This stuff is all BUNK. There isn’t ANY recorded thing that can be totally blocked from being seen in the USA. The wild west internet is wide open and whoever says this film was being blocked … by who? How in the world could these “blockers” prevent it from being downloaded or seen given the thousands of outlets available, legit or pirated? I think this story is being replied to by the staff of this web site. The replies are all too “tidy” relative to the subject matter and the story line. Way too tidy.
You miss the point. I believe the film can be found on flixaddict. The goal is not to keep it totally blocked, it is to limit viewership. I am not a staff member of this website. If you don’t realize that the MSM is a puppet of the Deep State Oligarchs after visiting websites like CN, then you are either lost in the Matrix, or in their employ.
Oh I see your comment here answers my question about where one might watch this film, thanks. Also, you sound like something a squirrel might eat with your “lost in the matrix” comment lol, but again, thanks for the info!
I’d be careful of flixaddict. Since I made that post I’ve checked on them, and it looks like they are scammers. They want your credit card info for the “free” trial. There are many complaints about them fraudulently charging credit cards.
Yeah, the matrix thing is a bit over the top. I do however think that the MSM is a propaganda organ. Let us not forget “weapons of mass destruction”, Kuwaiti babies tossed from incubators, Libyan soldiers on Viagra, etc. etc. The only news I trust from a TV set is local news ie., fires, shootings, the weather, etc.
you sound like a shill for Russian propaganda. It’s not some ‘secret’ video that only the enlightened few know about, it’s an effort to cover up the Russian government’s likely murder of someone who threatened their illegal money laundering.
Yes it is Russian propaganda and it’s absurd. Read Browder’s statement about the events from NYT. Browder was supposed to testify before the Senate (got cancelled) and Rohrbacher insisted on holding a showing the Nekrasov movie at the time of the planned testimony. It is important to read the original Magnitsky drama. It is all about money laundering Russian money into US real estate, all of which connects to Trump. $230 million dollar case just days away from trial by Preet Bharara when Trump fires Preet. No testimony taken and Trump orders Sessions to settle for a measly 6 million a few days later with apologies to the Russians. Spectacular. Magnitsky was offered safe travel out of Russia by Browder along with the other 6 attorneys from 4 law firms. Magnitsky chose to stay and battle because he knew the law and felt he could win. Got jailed and was sick with gallstone pancreatitis for a year without medical care until he crashed, then moved to the hole of Russian prisons where he was beaten to death. All this in a country where journalists are killed for asking the wrong questions.
I think it’s quite possible that Trump is crooked, Browder is crooked, Magnitsky was crooked, and Nekrasov told the truth in his film. Without seeing the film, it’s hard to judge. Sometimes there are no white hats, just crook vs. crook. By relying on just the original Magnitsky drama without seeing the Nekrasov film, we are not be getting the full picture. I trust Robert Parry’s judgement more than most journalists (it’s why I come here), but I’d still like to see the film for myself.
As for Russian journalists getting killed, it is no doubt the case. We have plenty of mysterious murders with a political connection in the good ol’ USA. There are plenty of bad apples the world over, but I have not seen any concrete evidence tying Putin to any of the murders. I have read and seen many of Putin’s speeches and interviews, and to me he seems to be a reasonable man who is trying to be of service to his country. I prefer to judge people directly by their words, and hope to avoid falling for slanderous propaganda and/or false flag attacks by forces with an opposing agenda.
It is astonishing that so many people will take on blind faith the story put forth in this article about a movie they haven’t seen, yet ignore the story this movie seeks to rebut. Putin has become one of or perhaps the richest man in the world syphoning money off the resources of Russia and no one makes money in Russia without Putin’s hand being paid in some way. He is worth more than Bill Gates by what we can count and some estimate even as high as 200 billion dollars. This isn’t from being paid as a government employee. He is a ruthless dictator and a true robber baron. Your assessment of him from his speeches is odd. I doubt you’d give anyone else such a generous pass. So many on this site absolutely have no knowledge of the Magnitsky case or have ever heard Browder speak. I heard Browder interviewed on the Randi Rhodes show yesterday and he is very compelling. His story is easily accessed by reviewing court documents in US v Prevezon. Only a lack of curiosity and lack of intellectual honesty would make someone ignore these facts and suppose an unseen movie is solid evidence. Strange days indeed.
There is a big difference between knowledge and baseless accusations. Please provide evidence of Putin’s robber baron activities and his net worth. I have seen nothing believable so far. Many in the alt-right accuse Hillary Clinton of being associated with somewhere around 40 deaths under mysterious circumstances. I would ask them for the same hard evidence that I am asking you to provide regarding Putin. Getting to hear Browder speak, but not getting to see Nekrasov’s film, leaves me suspicious. Go figure.
Money and power control the MSM. They control the boundaries of the entire narrative. If you think I am delusional, I suggest you look into the history of CIA involvement in the MSM.
Gilbert Doctorow discussed the “inconvenient truth” revealed in Nekrasov’s film:
“We see how well-known names in the European Parliament, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in NGOs that are reputed to be watchdogs have taken on faith the arguments and documentation (largely in Russian and inaccessible to them) which they received from William Browder and then rubber-stamped his story as validated without making any attempt to weigh the evidence.
“Their intellectual laziness and complacency is captured fully on film and requires no commentary by the director. One of those especially skewered by her own words is German Bundestag deputy (Greens) Marieluise Beck. It is understandable to me now that I have viewed the film why she was one of the two individuals whose objections to its showing scuttled the screening in the European Parliament in April.
“By the end of the documentary, Nekrasov finds that he has become a dissident in his own subculture within Russia and in European liberal circles.
“Another exceptional and striking characteristic of the filmmaker is his energetic pursuit of all imaginable leads in his investigative reporting. Some leads end in ‘no comment’ while others result in exposing whole new areas of lies and deception in the Browder narrative.
“Nekrasov’s diligence is exemplary even as he takes us into the more arcane aspects of the case such as the money flow from the alleged tax fraud. These bits and pieces are essential to his methodology and justify the length of the movie, which approaches two hours.
“Nekrasov largely allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times. Nekrasov’s camera is always running, even if his subjects are not thinking about the consequences of being taped. The film also shows a videotaped deposition of Browder fumbling during an interrogation in a related civil case that is devastating to those politicians and commentators who fully swallowed Browder’s Magnitsky line.
“Browder’s supposed lapses of memory, set in the context of involuntary facial expressions of stress and nervousness, would be compelling to jurors if this matter ever got into an open court of law in an adversarial proceeding.”
James Carden at the Nation viewed Aleksei Nekrasov’s film last year.
Carden noted how British hedge-fund manager, William Browder had “undergone a remarkable transformation: from a vocal supporter of Vladimir Putin who applauded the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, into a ‘human rights’ crusader with loyal constituencies among journalists and policy-makers in Washington”.
Carden described how Nekrasov’s film “picks up in the second half, as the filmmaker begins to document the grave inconsistencies embedded within Browder’s narrative. It makes for riveting viewing.
“At the end of the film, when Nekrasov confronts Browder with his findings, Browder ends the interview, stands, and makes a none-too-veiled threat, warning Nekrasov that his ‘FSB tactics’ are ‘not going to go well for you.’”
Carden detailed vigorous efforts by Browder to stop screenings of the film, and complaints from NATO and the US government–funded Atlantic Council think tank.
“the move toward a Global Magnitsky Act is troubling, because the original version of the act, as Nekrasov’s film makes clear, was passed solely on the strength of the questionable accusations of one man. The question which then arises is this: Should ultra-wealthy foreign nationals like Browder be able to transform their personal vendettas against foreign governments into law?
“In this respect the film provides a valuable service by asking how it is that American (and European) officials bought Browder’s story without doing even the slightest due diligence.”
I took the day off yesterday and had a nice road trip. I noticed that some of my comments (I think they were mostly replies to David) have been scrubbed from the comment stream. I am wondering if anybody knows what’s going on. Did I break some kind of rule?
My guess is that comments by “David” violated CN comment policy with repeated allegations unsupported by facts that disrupted on-topic discussion of Robert Parry’s article concerning the political and legal pressure directed against Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov’s docu-drama.
Nekrasov’s film challenges the dramatic tale told by hedge-fund operator William Browder. Parry notes parallels between the U.S. mainstream journalism embrace of Browder’s “Magnitsky Myth” and the MSM enthusiasm for “Russia-gate”.
Due to comment violations, the moderator took down a specific thread initiated by “David”.
The comment rules are there to support the thriving community discussion that is a hallmark of Consortium News. Please note that CN has plenty of work to do without having to police the comment section.
The CN Comment policy is here:
There has been concern about use of the term “troll”, which can function as both a noun and a verb. To troll is to sow discord on the Internet by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting on-topic discussion.
Trolling of online media has become a major emphasis in U.S. and NATO hybrid warfare activity aimed at manipulating public opinion in support of NATO military, political and economic initiatives.
An example of trolling: Immediately inserting a discussion of 9-11 into the comments section of an article that is not on the topic of the 9-11 events.
Thanks Abe. I do remember also getting side-tracked on the 9/11 thing with Sam F, I believe, and those comments are gone as well. I didn’t see harm in any of the strings, and I’m frankly a bit surprised. David was sufficiently refuted by myself and others, and the 9/11 comment thread was an innocent deviation from the topic at hand. I would think that Consortium News would be very sensitive about invoking censorship, since Parry and most of the other writers here are virtually barred from the MSM. I have always thought that the answer to lies is truth, not censorship.
Is their a link for a complete set of commenting rules, the above link is just a reminder? Or are they the only rules?
I am not a moderator for this site, and I greatly appreciate the fact that the Consortium News comment policy is very open.
Obviously that comes with challenges and responsibilities for us as CN community members.
Many online community discussion forums have adopted the general rule: “Do not ‘feed’ the trolls.” Community members are typically encouraged to report abuse by trolls, and asked to not engage with trolls in the comment threads.
Reacting to their provocations is exactly what trolls want. In certain cases, both the troll’s comments and community members’ responses are taken down. Notwithstanding the plaintive cries of trolls, that certainly ain’t “censorship” in my opinion.
Noone has found a perfect way to do this. Probably it’s best to support CN as it continues to improve the comment moderation.
Thanks for your reply. I greatly value all your input here at CN. You are obviously one of the most well read, and I’m learning from you all the time. Don’t worry, I will continue to support CN. Within the thread that was removed, I was trying to impress on David that many of our propaganda models, like the demonization of Putin and Assad, are virtually evidence-free, and that his rush to judgement regarding the film was unwarranted without actually viewing the film. I was enjoying the back- and- forth, and hoping for some input from others. I suppose we had gotten a bit off-topic.
Anyway, thanks again Abe. Maybe Robert Parry will take the time to clarify where he draws the line for removing comments.
I value your comments on this and many other topics at CN, Skip. Like you, I had commented on the thread. In any case, best to focus on the matter at hand.
Suffice it to say, if you’re looking for disinformation on 9-11 and countless other issues, there’s no better source than the New York Times
Of course, the Atlantic Council’s Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat make no effort to “fact check” their “First Draft” coalition “partners”.
No skip. David got censored and scrubbed by the moderator, and everyone else in the conversation got scrubbed too. You were innocent casualty. The sensitive material was the Magnitsky case, which Parry has chosen to dismiss and instead rely on Nekrasov’s hit piece video being proferred by Dana Rohrbacher and other Putin puppets.
Let us conclude that Browder’s revenge for the Putin’s termination of the plunder of Russia by the Russian-American-Israeli Jewish mafia was so far the most successful. Neither Berezovsky, nor Khodorovsky (so far) have been so successful, but this may also be because those two were Russian, not American like Browder. Browder knew much better how to manipulate the system to impose the Magnitsky Act. Finally, Browder’s successful surpression of the Nekrasov’s documentary in the West is yet another exposure of the false Western freedom and democracy bull. To remain in slavery the slaves are taught that they are free.
Rolling Stone commentator Matt Taibbi is the latest water-carrier for William Browder. Taibbi lived and worked in Russia and the former USSR for more than six years. He joined Mark Ames in 1997 to co-edit a Moscow-based, bi-weekly free English-language newspaper written primarily for the city’s expatriate community. In 2000, Taibbi published his first book, The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia. He later stated that he was addicted to heroin while he did this early writing.
In his latest article for Rolling Stone, Taibbi has little to say about the investment firm that at one time was the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia
Taibbi coyly writes:
“The ex-pat community in Moscow was initially unsure of what to think about the apparent attack on Browder and his companies. Browder at one time had been one of Putin’s most enthusiastic Western supporters.
“While many ex-pats who lived through the transition to Putin (myself included) immediately saw the new president as a dangerous autocrat who in the very best case would be a human rights downgrade from the awful-enough Yeltsin regime, Browder was one of the leading Western voices insisting that Putin was a man with whom we could do business. So it was odd to see his Hermitage company targeted.”
For the life of him, Taibbi can’t imagine why.
Untroubled by basic research into William Browder and the decade-long affairs of Hermitage Capital Management in Russia.
After a quick recap of Browder’s account of the Magnitsky case, Taibbi merely accepts at face value that “billionaire Browder at this point made getting payback for Magnitsky his life’s mission”.
Stenographer Taibbi seems genuinely impressed with the accomplishments of “self-taught lobbyist” Browder:
“Despite his financial power and profile, Browder for all his furious complaints had until the passage of the Magnitsky Act barely elicited a yawn from the Putin government. But once the Magnitsky law was passed, beating back the rule almost immediately became a primary focus of the Russian government.
“‘They didn’t care before. But now that we could freeze assets, that interfered with the whole business model of the Putin regime,’ Browder told me a few months ago. ‘That got their attention.’
“It should be noted that support of the Magnitsky law was not unanimous in the Western business community. There are some who disputed Browder’s version of events, or were at least unsure enough about what had happened to hesitate.
“A common concern was that in Russia, you never know whether things are being executed on orders from the very top, or merely by self-motivated crooks operating under the krysha, or protection (literally, ‘roof’), of higher-ranking officials. Those who lived there long enough knew the amounts of money taken in the Browder case weren’t enough to raise the pulse rate of the king thieves who run the Russian state. In fact, sanctioning Russia’s leaders for having committed these crimes was sure among other things to anger them on the level of being an insult to their professionalism.
“Some American business interests also quietly grumbled that the Magnitsky rule would derail the fragile relations between the two countries – the commercial relations, particularly – and that Browder might have achieved a moral right at the expense of irreversibly angering the Russians and queering lucrative business interests.”
Noting that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had initially opposed the Magnitsky rule, Taibbi joins the rest of mainstream media in utterly failing to examine pro-Magnitsky political lobby efforts.
Taibbi prefers to focus on what he opines are the “singularly revolting tactics” of Russian anti-Magnitsky lobby efforts.
We’re left to imagine that that the Magnitsky act got passed merely on the merits of the case, not to mention the self-professed awesome morale authority and brilliant salesmanship of Browder.
Turning to Nekrasov’s film, Taibbi says “What that means is hard to say. But add it to the long list of factors that make the Magnitsky/Browder case a very difficult one to unwind.”
It’s the signature style of anti-Russian mainstream media journalism. After regurgitating Browder’s claims verbatim, Taibbi wearily exclaims: “What’s the truth? I have no clue.”
It’s no secret that the “relatively localized and specific Magnitsky controversy” is “no longer needed as an excuse to hype up aggression” toward Russia.
Taibbi’s failure to conduct even a basic investigation of Browder and other significant “characters from the old divisive controversy” is not surprising.
Show the fucking link to your video source…….or retract the he said she said story
US and Western-sponsored trolls, and pro-Israel hasbara trolls attempt to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
A key Hasbara deception tactic is to falsely allege that legitimate criticism of Israel or pro-Israel political lobbying in the United States is somehow “anti-Semitic”.
A particularly despicable Hasbara smear tactic is the deliberate posting of incendiary comments with links to “anti-Semitic” and “Holocaust denial” material.
Readers of Consortium News are alert to these Hasbara propaganda tactics.
There have been a number of efforts by international and governmental bodies to define “anti-Semitism” formally.
The U.S. Department of State states that “while there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.” For the purposes of its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism, the term was considered to mean “hatred toward Jews, individually and as a group, that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.”
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency), then an agency of the European Union, developed a more detailed working definition, which states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The European agency adds that “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” but that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies, even harsh and strident criticism or advocacy, in and of itself does not constitute “anti-Semitism”.
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
“So, let’s please stay focused on why this matters.
“And why was Preet Bharara fired again?”
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that “many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country.”
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had “laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings.”
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn’s Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara’s office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli’s operation generated “hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit” and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case, days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors. Hmmmm.
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
The “great” article was not written by a journalist. It’s an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be “an independent voice”, the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman’s credentials as a “progressive” alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman admits that BooMan is related to the ‘bogey man’ (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel “opposition”.
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The timeline and facts of the Magnitsky case have been widely reported elsewhere and the author’s citations are consistent. So what if he’s an activist Democrat? If Putin is a bogey man, it is richly deserved.
Anyone at Consortium News disturbed by this?
From the comments board at Washington Monthly:
“Someone linked this article at consortiumnews. com discussion board under the Magnitsky article and it’s being unfairly debunked in the comments section by someone who dominates that comment board. It’s weird that Robert Parry and the consortium has adopted the position that all the news reporting of hacking and collusion is anti-russian hysteria. Anyone else disturbed by this? Parry is peddling the Nekrasov film claiming it refutes Browder and Magnitsky, and reveals them as the real villains. Pro Putin all the way. Shocking.”
Browder “defender” sockpuppets are working overtime on this case.
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton, regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump, then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans, because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump’s Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime, or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District, then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President, and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly’s first two page intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from “Roy G Biv” because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov’s film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about “unscrupulous swindler” and “sleazy crook” William Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish “Russian immigrant”.
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein’s paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the “right way” to vote.
So you’re saying because a Jew Senator was CC’d it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not. Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov’s film and demonstrating Russia’s intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Ah, comrade “David”. We see you’re back muttering about “disinformation” using your “own name”.
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder’s sockpuppets.
It won’t last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov’s comments to a Moscow news paper and “another paper” as evidence of Russia’s efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It’s plain as day if you just read it.
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don’t question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican) to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
It’s plain as day, “David” or whatever other name you’re trolling under, that you’re here to loudly “defend” the “credibility” and “standing” of William Browder.
Sorry, but you’re going to have to “defend” Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to “defend” Browder’s record.
But you’re gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and the “non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate” propaganda shtick.
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I’m not Jewish but you’re really over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
I am accurately characterizing your repeated violations of CN comment policy that were taken down by the moderator.
Your allegation that I am “wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts” is unsubstantiated.
Your allegation of “consistent negative references to Jews” is unsubstantiated.
I have consistently referred to verified facts concerning William Browder’s background, Russian Jewish influence in white collar crime and pro-Israel politics in the United States, and Russian Jewish organized crime and politics in Israel.
You have responded by ignoring those “negative” facts and consistently misrepresenting the reporting of RP, all the while playing the martyred “defender of truth”.
Now you’re trying to foist the allegation that CN is anti-Semitic.
Truly pathetic, which is to say, consistent behavior for a Browder “defender” sockpuppet.
Abe, thank you greatly for countering the troll. But at least he is now arguing about a document (that his sponsor probably paid for), whilst before he was just making unsubstantiated statements in favor of his sponsor. His commenting technique is still trollish, but his latest comments (although totally false and manipulative) probably do not directly breach the rules and will not be deleted.
torrent for the film?
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David’s comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about the censorship. Sad.
Note “allegations that are unsupported by facts”.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
My favorite was David’s claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc). I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David’s comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
You’re practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
“David” was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with “censorship”.
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, “Roy G Biv”.
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it’s easy for you to paint over my comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn’t appreciate it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
The cowardly claim of “censorship”.
The typical troll whine is that their “contrary viewpoint” was “dismissed” merely because it “ran against the tide”.
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American Republic is dead.
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as “pro-Kremlin” by WaPo. That’s just too funny. He’s in a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but still finished his documentary.
CN article on 911 truthers:
Thanks for this…Troubled I am
Support Duly ELECTED
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist. Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity. As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn’t even have this during the cold war.
Yes indeed P. Clark….that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
“Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.”
What I find interesting is that Sy Hersh hasn’t written about this. Sy is good, but it’s relative. He’s establishment.
“Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist Party USA, and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School in 1989 where his classmates included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen. Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group in London and managed the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.”
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed blog post in which I methodically take apart the latest “revelation” about Donald Trump Jr.’s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I’m sensing this Trump Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I’m sure by Hillary’s standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write…there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I’m glad you like the blog. I wasn’t under the impression that Clinton was under any particular danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn’t have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense because it’s pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her to win.
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
“as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr. said that, although he asked her about it, she didn’t give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act and Russia’s decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we’d have no particularly good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone’s ridiculous email ever surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting. Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid.”
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I’ve seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya’s role in the affair and the nature her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
Thanks, I’m glad you liked it.
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny’s stuff. Nobody’s buying it. He’s harmless. If he’s here on his own dime, if we don’t feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he’s being payed, he may persist, but so what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what we must counter to wake people up.
Yeah mike k, I know you’re right. I don’t know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it’s because he never responds to a rebuttal.
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with clinton democrats. Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
I don’t really see Mr Parry’s point. The banning of Nekrasov’s film isn’t proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov’s argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. “A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that B is truthful.” Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company, a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a “surprise” offer from prosecutors that was “too good to refuse”. This “Russian government attorney” (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC “dirt” did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks, just as “dirt” appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and “Juniorgate” confirms MacronLeaks. The question now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this “too good to refuse” offer? That question cannot just be written off with the “no evidence” argument.
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can’t be written off with the “no evidence” argument (how is that logical?), and then you trash a film you haven’t even seen because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Sorry to hear of possible censorship. I have had things with links occasionally go into moderation, but they always wound up being posted in the end.
There are of course plenty of possibilities. I just can’t see jumping to conclusions without actually seeing the film. And speaking of censorship, don’t you find it odd that the film has been censored. If Browder had credibility he’d refute it, not censor it.
I do not buy into the Putin murders. I have seen too much lying by the MSM. I have watched Stone’s Putin interviews along with many other speeches and interviews. I prefer to judge a person by their words directly, rather than fall for slanderous propaganda, and false flag operations, which I suspect these murders may be. I feel the same about Assad in Syria. If you have read the PNAC and are familiar with the Yinon plan, it is easy enough to see the Deep State oligarchs’ machinations at work. Also, realize that the NDAA in 2012 made it legal to use propaganda against US citizens (not that they weren’t already doing it). Add to that the vault 7 releases that show our intelligence communities can fake point of origin, and basically say anything and pin it on anyone, and one begins to realize that “The Matrix” was more of a documentary than fiction. When we got Yeltsin into power, the rape, pillage, and plunder game was on. Putin put a stop to it, and kept the oligarchs from taking their capital out of Russia. So Putin became our Demon d’jour.
That’s basically my take on things. I hope you are not discouraged from returning to this site. I would also highly recommend Information Clearing House. Also John Perkins book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” Peace.
David, I wish you didn’t jump into such conclusions too hastily – being censored. Many commenters have experienced a delay in posts appearing on the site. There might be some technical problems.
A suggestion to everyone writing here, let’s stop calling someone a troll or a paid MSM agent. Childish and ridiculous. We should welcome those who have an opposite opinion and try to see their point, and argue for our own views. This site has been a very civilised one, let’s keep it that way.
Please tell me which murders you have solid evidence for tying directly to Putin. I won’t give anyone a “pass” after being provided with convincing evidence. So far I have seen none. Also, if you are not familiar, there is a very similar smear campaign regarding Hillary Clinton being responsible for many murders. I have seen no solid evidence regarding her either, just circumstantial. As for Putin plundering his own country, please provide solid evidence. Nothing is clear and indisputable without evidence. Russian standard of living and average life expectancy have both increased under Putin, and he enjoys continuous popular support inside Russia, averaging between 60 pct and 80 pct over his entire tenure.
I am not as afraid of the far left and the far right being on the same page as I am of all the people sound asleep watching their TVs in the middle. Bread and circuses. As for ruthless specialists at deception, my vote goes to James Clapper and John Brennan.
“I guess this will be last you hear from me”. Oh, that would be such a loss. And this after contributing so much money to this zine, which ended up writing not the way you paid. What a loss. You know, people pay much more money to get their opinions and interests reflected than what you contributed to this zine.
As a general rule, the auto-moderation algorithm will refer a comment to human moderation if you have more than one link or a link to a non-standard source or if you use a few risky phrases in your comment. The human moderator will then let your comment trough after on average about 12 hours. I learned all this myself by being “censored”.
Throwing mud too quickly?
For some unknown reason I just feel that you are not going to disappear on us.
David: “I do not doubt the Putin murders, they are actually very credible and well documented.”
They are not.
“Putin is a former power in KGB” – Please, tell us about his real position in the KGB. Was he a director of the KGB like Bush Sr was a director of the CIA? Here is a Wikipedia to rescue: “From 1985 to 1990, he [Putin] served in Dresden, East Germany, using a cover identity as a translator.” Hey, David, since then being a translator is equivalent the “KGB power?” “In 1999, Putin described communism as “a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization”. Does this hurt you?
“He co-opted the plunder for his own gain. This much is clear and indisputable.”
Any proofs? – Or you just feel this with your guts, like McCain and Palin? What is it about Browder that makes you such an enthusiastic defender of this scoundrel?
Let me suggest, David, that you are making your posts from Israel and that you are a regular Russophobe.
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of “Michael Kenny” and “David” is accompanied by loud declarations that they have “logic” on their side and “evidence” somewhere. Then they shriek that they’re being “censored”.
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically showing up when articles discuss the West’s “regime change” wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism. Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United States in “regime change” projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime and terrorism in Syria.
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
When they have a hard time selling that they’re being “censored” (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they’re being “dismissed” and “invalidated” by “hostile voices”.
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about ‘Russia-gate’ I would ask if ‘the other side of a story’ is really what we want … or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions, that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making. Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the ‘other side of the story’ and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date … or, until more facts are revealed it appears …
HEAR ! HEAR ! Excellent !
Replying to a question with another question isn’t really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no alternative.
How do you propose to determine the “facts” when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy? Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of “characters” we call the Mainstream Media are extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those “facts” you speak of?
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get “the other side of the story” from the MSM. You are right in pointing out that “the other side of the story” probably isn’t ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white), but at least it’s something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can’t it, Deborah? Cheers.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven’t seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S. politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as “The Southern mafia.
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we’d be shocked. We only ever know things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there’s a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: “Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader”. http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
democracy squelching- algorithm-produced, remote-acting, target-expressing, controlled pantomime, maybe?
Has technology made Pinocchio’s strings both remote acting and invisible..?
see bottom of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantomime
Something has happened to Consortium News as well. Where they taken over by RT?
The ziocons are displeased that the truth is coming out? – http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/colluding-with-foreign-spies-it-apparently-aint-the-trumps-by-publius-tacitus.html#tpe-action-resize-367
and this: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/httpwwwhaaretzcomus-news1800584.html
When democracy vanishes the truth is treason.
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today, and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what’s happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US’ aggressive stance. That’s number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership’s crimes in the last election. Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information! They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons’! These exposures, not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative: that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism, but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention — Chris Kinder
Chris – good post. Thanks.
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don’t put all that in each individual post.
If Trump wants to survive he better let go of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Lets start here:
Trump’s personal attorneys are reportedly fed up with Jared Kushner
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump’s legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner’s “whispering in the president’s ear” about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times’ source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner “as an obstacle and a freelancer” motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work environment among Trump’s inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don’t.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner’s Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to “help advance the president’s foreign policy goals.” Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank’s development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner ‘tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before …
http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar’s richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner’s real estate dealings and his father-in-law’s …
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country’s banks gives them the money.
At Kushners’ Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies’ flagship in the heart of Manhattan — a record-setting $1.8 billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start. On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall, a hotel and high-priced condominiums”
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has gone to the very very very DARK side.
Yea…666 probably isn’t a coincidence….lol
Here’s a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr’s infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton’s transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya. My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr’s ‘intent’. Didn’t Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute due to her lack of ‘intent’? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn’t need to prove intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary’s deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates point to Donald Jr’s opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
I’ve been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it’s a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election. Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody looks innocent by comparison. I’m still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the “deep state” thinks they have Trump under control.
It’s like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I’m really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I’d tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger….she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she’s smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I’m just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let’s see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
“Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.”
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60’s.
The first time I ever heard that line, ‘believe nothing of what you see’, was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field….oh those were the days.
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player…I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, ‘get off the field, get out of here’. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers….#21 Roberto Clemente.
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story…life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
“Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives “play-acting” for their audience. So what you “saw” was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever. The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
Sanford – “But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers…” That’s funny writing.
yessir, love it
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers would still be most scary.
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that “many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country.”
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had “laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings.”
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn’s Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara’s office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli’s operation generated “hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit” and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is “Nikogda ne zabyt’!” Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: “Niemals vergessen!”
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it’s lucrative to “never forget”! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing but the best defense. “I’ve got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I’ll string this thing along and it’ll cost you a fortune. So let’s deal. I’m good with a fine.”
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they’d be there. That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has done a lot of good.
USA justice for Oilygarchs; Ignore capital crimes and mass destruction ; concentrate on entertaining shenanigans.
Sounds like you have some kind of axe to grind I read the article and researched it and find that as usual Robert Parry is dead on accurate….There are a number of people who found Preet Bhahara to be quite problematic in how he used his office, not the great shining “hero” to all that the globalist media tries to portray and show boating for a political career….http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/dick-bove-thinks-preet-bharara-should-be-hung-by-his-heels.html
You reminded me of the Samuel Johnson’s famous pronouncement on patriotism.
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages until Gramps got finidhed reading the “News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled in me the sence of
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls, that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They’re known on occasion to say, “Okay, enough. We’re full.” I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
“no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder […]
“there’s a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder’s memoir.
“The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
“When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management — named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that’s not explained either — his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.
“Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel’s Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York’s Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it’s surprising that none of it gets mentioned.
“It’s possible that Browder’s reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness.”
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn’t it? It’s often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As the article says, he leaves a lot out.
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University – The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University – Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the study included “the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power […] or abuse of financial power”. The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
“With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not claim a particular religious faith […] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews.”
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts, Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug’s sample of financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin’s main confrontation is not against US then against the Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel, almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin’s principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
” His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. ”
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In general, what you write is true, but not always. Jews are not all single-minded as you appear to suggest. The crooks are the ones with money, because the Jewish crooks are always white-collar crooks. But many honest Jews oppose crime and extreme Zionism and I believe that Putin plays on that divide.
Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared “Someone has to punch Putin in the nose” and urged “supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries”.
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.
William Browder is a “shareholder activist” the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a “human rights activist”.
Both loudly bleat the “story” of their heroic “fight for justice” for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.
“never driven by the money”
Abe – “never driven by the money”. No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
“It’s hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met “big Hollywood players” in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
“The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film,” he says. “I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.
“There are a lot of people looking at it. It’s still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I’m not going to name any names.”
What the…..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza’s Law if you like (modestly): “The truth is always opposite to what MSM say!” The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case is the margin of error.
“Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains a cherished value.”
A Response to William Browder
By Rachel Bauman
Before you go off the deep end, watch the banned documentary. You can access the streaming service starting at:
The fact that Preet Bharara was fired is irrelevant to the article or the evidence against Browder, who was one of the cadre of American financial oligarchic sharks who sought to loot Russia of its national assets- except that he held a preferred position by virtue of his provenance- his grandfather Earl Browder had been the head of the Communist Party USA. It is also irrelevant to the fact that the Magnitsky Act was used as a convenient replacement to the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which imposed sanctions on the Soviet Union and remained in effect until it was held violative of the WHO and was repealed in December, 2012.
As for Bharara, he was also one more member of the swamp- maybe Bob could do an investigative piece on him- and incidentally part of the cadre of federal prosecutors who without fail came down hard on whistleblowers and alleged violators of ‘national security’. Whether Trump has the baggage you describe, you forget that there is still an ongoing investigation being run by another member of the swamp- and a nominee for FBI Director that is a third member of the same slime.
I wouldn’t cry tears over Bharara, unless you are a crocodile.
As for 9/11, while my personal sense is that it was an inside job with patsies and a coverup as egregious as the Warren Commission Report, all we have right now is a case based on circumstantial evidence. So, I respect Bob’s restrained position on it and unwillingness to be stampeded into joining the ‘truthers’, since everything I’ve read of his- and it’s a lot- has been carefully sourced and confirmed, and that’s what has made his reporting so honest, valuable and special.
And, anyway, how do you know it is not still on his radar. After all, you never know when the documents or witnesses will surface that would support an indictment- and as you know, there is no statute of limitations for murder.
Who you going to believe? Somebody who fully documents his story or somebody shilling for the power structure based on less than the full truth about an individual who probably should have been fired in any event since according to the spoils system, you get your own people into key jobs, not some guy working on an opposition conspiracy theory.
Exactly which creditors for exactly which debt?
is not it easier ti stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Post instead of facing the truth? – Browder is a scoundrel who had been fattening on the Russian tragedy (arranged by the Harvard imbecile “boys”) until he was stopped by the Russian government. The movie director Nekrasov has been one of the most vocal critics of Putin – google his works; it just happened that the mega-thief Browder was too obvious to keep with his blatant lies and insinuations.
If the US were a free country, the documentary (DOCUMENTARY!) will be available for the US citizenry. Instead, people like you, “David,” rush to muddy the waters with anything to obscure the obvious – the perfidy of the current US regime; guided by ziocons to WWIII. The preconclusions have been peddled by the happy warriors whose children would never be in combat to protect the US.
Obviously, I concur with Anna. The power structure has plenty of defenders everywhere. We have to go to samisdat websites such as this one, the best in my opinion. Parry’s record and skills are exceptional. That is why this is so convincing. He has exposed a central element of the phony Russia conspiracy theory put up by the neocons.
I also concur with the fact that WWIII is the logical endpoint of the ziocon program. Bharah is a red herring. His sacking was normal procedure for an incoming administration for such a key office as New York City federal prosecutor. In light of the power structure machinations during the interminable transition period, any deviation by Trump would have been extremely foolish and, indeed, a sign of weakness whatever you think of Trump’s subsequent performance. This new Parry article brings out important facts about the Russia conspiracy theory and the nature of US media power in its absolutist desire to suppress anything inconvenient to it despite any protestations to the contrary.
Damn Anna! Are you single? I’m thinking you’re nailing it.
Thank you, Patrick. I am also a decent cook (insert a smiley face here)
Hi “David.” The paper is about Magnitsky act. Why don’t you stay on point instead of wandering here and there, while slandering Parry? He is a courageous and principled man. If you want to know his investigative journalism on 9/11 – google it.
The same with the ziocons’ rabid hatred for Putin and Russian Federation. Both Alperovitch (of the CrowdStrike fame – “no FBI allowed”) and Max Boot (the mad Russophobe from CFR) were born in Russia to Jewish families. Considering the number of Jews involved in the Bolshevik tragedy (ever heard that the first Soviet government was 85% Jewish?) and the enormous thievery and slaughter inflicted on the Russians by the Bolsheviks, the ziocons should better be more discrete re Russia. Instead, the ziocons do regime change in Kiev with the help of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and they encourage Poland to destroy monuments to Soviet soldiers (some 600000 men and women) who died in a fight against fascism in Poland. What is the point then in the ADL, AIPAC, and other Friens of Israel wailing about Holocaust? – “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!?”
“Trump is owned by his Russian creditors.”
You should also mention that Trump is owned by German creditors as well. According to German news sources Trump’s debt to Deutsche Bank is at least 130 Million Euros. Further to being indebted to Deutsche Bank Trump’s campaign had been sponsored by Allianz und BASF, Bayer und Deutsche Bank (http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/25070634). So, if someone owns Trump’s ass it’s not only the Russians.
Investigating Trump’s investments, and the results of that, would be better than all this Putin bashing. I mean give me something to hang our hats on. Joe, it is good you mention this about the German’s and Trump. I guess it’s possible that all of Trump’s foreign investments are on the uppity up, but to see if he has been compromised by these financial dealings would be most warranted, if for no other reason but as to make sure Trump isn’t beholden to any other faction other than the American people…wow, that’s a joke, but none the less we should at least try and make it look like we do things for the people, and not foreign entities with criminal ties. You know like Sheldon Adelson.
Good comment Joe Joe ….that’s not Jojo it’s Joe – Joe
since so many former US presidents had been compromised by donors, I wanted to add some different angle to the whole witch hunt that’s going on. When reading of his plans to finance the rebuilding highways by Public Private Partnerships instantly reminded me of our German politicians. By using some trickery they privatized German highways through the backdoor. German insurers were fond of the idea of Public Private Partnerships: renting highways for small money, rebuilding crumbling German highways (right now with with interest rates so low, the state could rebuild highways nearly interest free, whilst insurers will lend the same amount of money for a much higher interest) and then cashing in the road charges. According to some German news sources insurers would get about 3% interest. If you consider that about 80 billion is needed for the highways, the interest rate will help those insurance companies to make some bucks.
Politics seems to be the same everywhere you look. The criminals are using the best blueprints of the criminals in other countries. Now, with some riots at the G20 meeting, the usual suspects are already shouting for “law and order” and try to discredit everything that’s left of neo-liberal. If I were into gambling I might be tempted to place a bet when Germany’s police will be as militarized as it is in the US. Europe is slower in those aspects, but sadly it’s going in the same direction.
Joe A. For a different perspective go to EIR (see comment to Joe T.) search box. Type in “Return of the Monarchs” and “Synarchy against America” and “Oligarchism”. I think you’ll see Germany, and Europe in general, and Britain too, are VERY OLD hands at going in this direction that we’re heading into. Fascism is just the modern form of Oligarchy. Ironically, it is the USA that has finally been captured by the Old World Oligarchs, which was a task undertaken immediately after FDRs death. That was the reason for the RatLines smuggling Hitler’s intelligence assets out of country and into our employ by the newly-formed CIA (Wall Street agents fired all OSS agents loyal to FDR’s vision for the Post-War World). Basically, all the conflict of the past 250 or so years has been the Old World Oligarchy trying to squelch the idea launched in 1776 (We The People forming our own government, turning our backs on Oligarchs), and regaining Dominion once again over We The Serfs and Subjects to The Crown; this from “Synarchy against America”
Hey Joe T. , for some interesting reading, go to Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). Go to the search box. Type in “Deutsche Bank”, also Public Private Partnerships (PPP will probably also work). One article is “Felix Rohatyn’s PPP swindles: Mussolini’s infrastructure plan” or something like that. I remember Felix from my Koolaid days of watching Wall Street Week in the 80s. The man is a Synarchist banker; George Schultz is too.
You owe the bank $250K, they own you. You owe the bank $150M, you own them. I would think there’s more danger in Trump manipulating German or Russia, in a way, because if he walks away from those deals, they’ll hurt.
you’ve got a point.
They’ll arrange for legal cover to demand repayment of out-standing loans to the point of personal bankruptcy, converting you into a serf for the financial Oligarchs (“I owe my soul to the Company Store”). THAT is the whole point of Bailouts, Bail-ins and “Too Big To Fail”. FDR’s Glass-Steagall/Bankruptcy Re-organization law of 1933 was precisely meant to stop this from happening…and it did, until it was rescinded in 1999. We need to reinstate it verbatim, and APPLY it.
George Kaplan, great point. Actually, both are hostage, though.
Independent investigative journalist Robert Parry is known for his tenacity in objectively following the facts.
Parry’s journalism stands in sharp contrast to the pre-concluded narrative “storytelling” propagated by U.S. mainstream media cabals like the “First Draft” coalition, blatant propagandists like the Atlantic Council’s fake “citizen journalist” Eliot Higgins, and “open source intelligence” scam artists like Bellingcat.
Parry has exposed fake news and conspiracy theories peddled by the U.S. government, mainstream media, and pro-war “regime change” think tanks like the Atlantic Council.
Because of Parry’s reporting on MSM propaganda regarding this alleged “Russian thing”, Consortium News is routinely targeted by trolls who loudly declare that “something has happened” to Parry.
Commenter “David” presents a case in point. Notice that “David” does not address any substantive fact of Parry’s story, but simply strings together a series of declarative statements to impugn the story redirect the discussion. It’s a Junior High School debate tactic.
I agree in full. Amateur troll gambit. Another did the same exact routine a few months ago, pretending to be a longstanding donor and reader of Mr. Parry’s books, who suddenly saw the light where he could not show any light.
“Stiv” is his handle.
It is all about selective reading David. I do not think that you would even want to read or see anything about “Maginitsky case and rule” which does not agree with your preconceptions.
Your problem is that the people who frequent CN tend to be very well informed, probably much better than you, thus your claims here read out totally lame. You are the odd man out here, not the majority of commenters here, we admire Mr Parry for his true journalism even when some of us do not agree with him on politics.
As Abe says, you do not address any substantive fact, your proof is in some undefined and obscure “other material” on the same topic (usually turns out to be the MSM swill) and “it is not your job to educate” those who do not have the same bias as you.
Finally, the trolls do have a tendency to claim that they contributed to Mr Perry’s zine, it is usually the most reliable sign of trolling. At least you are a polite troll.
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry’ s name will one day appear in the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become “when first we practice to deceive”.
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter’s article; that’s a really good one too!
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know…….. (Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table? Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that’s I’m right about everything and your not, what compromise with you?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas we can’t see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue to stay so undivided. Sure, we can’t all see the same things the same way, but maybe it’s me, and I’m getting older by the minute, but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we’re assisting/doing.
This is where the Two Joe’s are alike.
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the ‘greed is good’ philosophy in vogue now, those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of the nightmare USA society has become.
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can’t trust anything he says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I’ve seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
“Browder is a Communist …”
Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that’s an oxymoron.
Bill Browder’s grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not).
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book entitled “Two Hundred Years Together” the other day. I’ve been reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don’t know about Browder, but from what I’ve read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn’t just the Jews, but they played a big part. It’s no wonder Solzhenitsyn’s book has been “lost in translation”, at least into English, for so many years.
I’ve also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: “His father has a communist past.” You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them.
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990’s. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt, and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME. I ama Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don’t know what they spoke about but other than lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You all have a nice Peacefull day
Joe Average – “I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930’s.”
No, it doesn’t put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized (sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I’ve read many places online). Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: “Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918).”
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine,” but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn’t want to finish it (and I didn’t) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I’d say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up. Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a “walking encyclopedia”. She’ll probably have a good laugh. (Not that you’re not, but you know what she’ll say: “Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.”)
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in the mid to late ’90’s how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or ‘jobs’, but seemingly able to pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her ‘place in the mountains’, which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy, confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn’t tell if the implement used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating of these incidents the phrase “… this Russian guy…” would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving , caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the materialistic, evil, self-centered don’t f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It’s worked for me.
thanks for the info. I’ll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading “Mein Kampf”. I’ve got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930’s.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I’ve heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I’ve read of many times is that a lot of them built their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I’ve read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn’t dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that’s something our Western oligarchs and financial institutions don’t like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn’t notice an important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you’ll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we’re going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if the economy doesn’t blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists make excellent points that our present Western economy can’t go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don’t think we’ll have much choice as the oil is running out. We’ll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They’ll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks that way.
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for over a century and was basically the “prime minister” to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin’s Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added “Duke of the Franks” to his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony. Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign he didn’t even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son, Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8 when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago…” — Birds of a feather flock together.
Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies (never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), “Chrysta” is totally approved by the US government.
I’ll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I’ll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I’m adding the book “Two Hundred Years Together” to my to-read list and then mentioned that I’m right now reading “Mein Kampf”. All remarks after mentioning the latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
I’m aware that accountant isn’t an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added the phrase “seems to be similar”. You’re correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point that I wanted to make. It would’ve been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven’t been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It’s the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress Madeleine Schickedanz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you’ve got some investment (that dates back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants / money managers) are taking over. Aren’t investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don’t face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
History’s Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on …
History’s Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks …. EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal position of the church in the …
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable art work also.
Cal – read about “History’s Greatest Heist” on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar’s overthrow to steal and then flee? It’s got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings, gold, etc. That doesn’t even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with it?
” Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow”’
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside some loot for themselves.
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against “The Natural Order for human society”, or some such belief.
Looking up “A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche” would give much insight into what’s going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something like “Synarchism:NAZI/Communist” got into Lyndon’s hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen’s old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their “sins” of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the “Boardroom” NAZIs would have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia, the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump’s friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia and China.
Brad, I’ve said on many occasions that we’re reading the same things but we’re coming from different directions. As always my focus has been on justice in the Assassination of President Kennedy. I’m convinced that that crime is nearly solved and only requires consolidation by a handful of people into a sort of logical, obvious truth. When that happens we’ll all have to hold on to our hats so to speak because the depth of the deception will rock America. Many institutions will instantly loose their fake credibility and we will have to coalesce rapidly to rescue and balance as a social order. That said, the above “thread” seems to me to be the route to truth. For many years I’ve relied on the Spartacus Web site to inform me and use as a tool for reading. It has been invaluable. I’m reading right now William Torbitt and Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. I’ll link the main page for the Kennedy Assassination and a kind of Rogues Gallery of characters that is accurate and fascinating…
The above thread is excellent. Thanks to all…
A ‘Magnitsky Act’ in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in Parliament.
A column in today’s Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper’s ‘chief political writer’ tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger, with a link to this article.
David although I appreciate your view point, if Preet Bhahara uncovered that Trump was part of a Russian money laundering scheme, then even after his getting fired from his post by Trump, maybe even more so because Trump fired him, why didn’t Bhahara go to the NYT or WaPo and go public with the evidence? Anderson Cooper would have loved interviewing Bhahara over such an item, as you brought up.
When it comes to Robert Parry’s reporting, what I read here in Parry’s article, is that some Russian Oligarch is traveling the world censoring a movie directors portrayal of the Magnitsky death, and nothing more.
My desire to see the Democrat’s get off of this Russian nonsense, is that time is a wasting and before to long the 2018 elections will be here, and the Democrat’s will not be ready for the voters. Seriously, Trump is an issue magnet without any Russian narrative, so why not go after Trump for all of those things he has been doing all on his own? That’s what a political party does. What about single payer healthcare, or jumping on board with Tulsi Gabbard’s two House Bills, one calling to quit furnishing arms to the terrorist, and the other too allow Assad to govern his country. I mean we could sit here all day long and make up a list of issues to go after Trump with, but I ask you why Russia?
We could ask our Democrat and Republican Representatives why Oliver Stone’s movie ‘Ukraine on Fire’ was never shown in the U.S., but they would probably not answer that question, because the truth would get them thrown out of office if we the people ever did find out to just what in the hell is going on.
I myself don’t hold it against Robert Parry for being a 911 doubter, since I know of a lot of people who doubt the questioning of 911. I personally do believe that 911 wasn’t what we were told it was, and yes I lean very heavily towards the inside job conspiracy theory, so with that David you and I are on the same page.
Take care David Joe
There are “911 doubters” and “911 truthers”. I consider myself the former. Unfortunately, the damn truthers threw in so much BS that it made it very difficult to question the official conclusions without being associated with the truthers ( i.e. those who claimed that towers came down because of pre-planted thermite, etc etc). That was very unfortunate because there were some real questions about was US and foreign intelligence agencies knew about the 911 plots before 911.
ToivoS, you need to do some more research, including the testimony of hundreds of Architects &
Engineers, about Controlled Demolitions. If the Grenfell Tower is still standing after that Horrific Fire,
does,t that make you wonder just a little tiny bit?!? The current mania for LABELS, like
“Truthers”, is knee-jerk denial & is not intellectually sound.
Are all those Architects & Engineers to be dismissed as “Truthers”? Think, man, think.
You are the one who must think, and I have told you clearly why.
Only building 7 collapsed without an aircraft impact, and it is hard to believe that such a smooth failure could have been caused by asymmetrical debris thrown off by Bldgs 1 & 2, and the videos do not show the floors that collapsed first, and there may be evidence that it was destroyed by explosives.
All speculation about WTC 1 & 2 is obviously false, and is designed to distract from the sources of the known airplane attacks. You must learn more about buildings to avoid being embarrassed later: you were unable to answer my lengthy statements on this the last time with anything but jeers and speculation. That will not do; you must stop.
1. There are hundreds of thousands of us engineers in the US, and the few percent of “truthers” among them are not even structural engineers let alone high-rise structural engineers. We engineers don’t vote on the truth, and we don’t speculate, we find it out, if necessary by consulting specialists, and not any specialist, and not just one specialist where there is disagreement. An unusual collapse does not mean any theory will do.
2. Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. Not so in ordinary furniture and surface fires. If you don’t believe that, don’t waste our time. That burning floor full of aircraft fuel is the only damage in the building for a long time, then that floor alone collapses quickly due to a progressive failure by lateral overloads of columns, then the entire high-rise above it falls and begins crushing the floors below.
3. There is absolutely no sign whatsoever in any of the videos of Any damage at Any time to Any floor below, until the building above it crashes down and crushes that floor. Period. No damage. Where are these supposed explosives? Obviously high explosives did not secretly destroy each and every floor just at the instant that the building above was collapsing on it, with never a sign of any independent cause of damage. Thunderstorms are not caused by angels pushing clouds around and making noise. Study those videos.
4. The posited operation plan makes no sense at all: it is preposterous that anyone who wanted to destroy the buildings by other means would go to the trouble of arranging aircraft attacks also; it is preposterous that they would try to do both at the same time. Do speculators think that Pearl Harbor was caused by saboteurs blowing up ships just as the kamikazis hit them? Why have kamikazis? They would have attacked some buildings by one means and others by the other means. It is preposterous that each plane would hit the exact unmarked floor where some other destructive device sat ready to go. The two impact floors are twenty floors apart. It is ludicrous that not a single error would be made in such a complex and utterly unnecessary plan; it is absurd that no other building would be hit by just one of the two modes of destruction, especially when one of the planes did not get to its target at all. It is absurd that no one would be able to tell from the videos.
5. Your comparisons with other buildings are all wrong: they aren’t steel-column high-rises of this kind, and they aren’t subject to the same damage. Buildings under six stories usually have external masonry bearing walls, which when asymmetrically damaged collapse asymmetrically in large pieces, tipping and scattering walls etc. Grenfell Tower apparently was reinforced concrete columns, affected by a fire spreading on exterior sheathing material with nothing more inside to burn than furniture: totally different so different results. It is probably not structurally sound now. Don’t bother to try to trick poeple that there were no differences; there are no similarities.
This speculation of explosives has been proven wrong ten ways! Errors are quite understandable, but now is the time to give it up, and focus on what is unexplained. Do you think the Pentagon was blown up just as the plane hit that? Do you think that the field that the lost plane crashed into was blown up just before that? Who do you think you are talking to? Do not answer with more speculation, jeers, and bogus links to speculators, or readers will have to assume that you are a troll disrupting this website.
If that is your assessment as an engineer, it leaves me with only two possibilities. Either you are incompetent and need to go back to school, or you work for the pentagon where all of this was orchestrated under the watchful eyes of your ex-boss, Cheney et al.
Your lengthy response is in the manner of the same mumbo jumbo that was written in the 911 report. Twisted and complicated nonsense that politicians use to weasel out of the truth.
Sam F, very impressive response. I have been somewhat of a 911 doubter, and I have had several arguments with my brother Tom who is a Structural Engineer, who believes the official story. I am much more inclined now to believe the official story that it was the Jets that brought down the buildings. Too much good common sense in your response. Where I think the official story falls short would be on the extent of Saudi monetary aid to the terrorists as well as insider help (Saudi and/or money influenced) in the terrorists getting visas into our country. Also, the FBI had been called several times about people wanting to learn to fly but not take off or land–their ineptitude should have been looked at more. I also doubt that with all of the enhanced security features and the Patriot Act as well, and the loss of individual freedoms to people in the US (particularly the 4th amendment in regards to all the government’s surveillance), I doubt that any further terror acts were prevented.
This is the initial examination of the WTCs MIT did.
Their team said :
” A great deal of effort was put into retrieving the most
accurate set of data available to the general public. As soon as more precise information on
cross-sectional shapes and dimensions, joining metals (strengths of weldments) etc. become
available, we will be able to quickly reevaluate our calculations and introduce corrections to
But I haven’t been able to find a follow up examination. I doubt they were able to find all the data they needed after 911 –the treatment of the steel beams (as in applied fire retardation) and were not able to examine the remains.
Aircraft Impact Damage
Fire Dominated Theory and Impact Dominated Theory– as in which actually caused the collapse.
This is way over my physics and engineering pay grade.
However my uncle who is an engineer whose company builds hospitals, skyscrapers and steel bridges said shortly afterwards that all investigations would have to be ‘inconclusive’ without the ability to study the debris and have access to the material list and treatments for the steel used in the building. I have two friends though , a former Navy pilot and then a FAA crash investigator, and a Boeing 727 jet captain and later a trainer for Boeing pilots who both did express some doubt about the jet fuel theory
“crushing the floors below”
That’s a doozy.
Gregory Herr – “‘Crushing the floors below’ – That’s a doozy.” I’ll say!
I am no engineer, but a couple thoughts come to mind.
If you allow for the possibility of building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition, doesn’t that require pre-planning? I can’t imagine that they could rig something like that in a matter of hours, and in the midst of all the mayhem of that day.
If you allow that building 7 came down due to demolition and that it was pre-rigged, then why have a completely different hypothesis for buildings 1 & 2? And why would the authorities lie about building 7?
You ascribe to the “pancaking” theory, yet I have read a lot of information that seems to counter that. As for not needing the planes, as with so many false flag operations, the spectacular nature of the event itself, and the witnessing of the buildings burning prior to the collapse, served to stoke the public for revenge.
This article from europhysicsnews is one of the most convincing I’ve found to date. Have you read it?
To Patrick: Yes, my comment does not extend to any ‘official story’ on the causes of the aircraft attacks, nor the causes of the WTC bldg 7 collapse, and certainly not to the foreign policy use made of the 911 attacks, or the compromises of free speech and personal privacy. Just the causes of WTC bldg 1 & 2 collapse.
To Cal: Yes, the whole matter is inconclusive without the full story. I do not claim to have all of it, and will gladly defer to a set of full studies, although the study that I saw agreed, most of information in. Fire retardants are not so effective and usually are fragile. Those plane wings are almost all fuel tank, although not full, and I have seen massive steel columns collapsed due to a fuel fire. But only a few had to go to overload the next ones, and few probably were damaged already by the impact.
To Greg and b-e: Yes, the means by which the falling high-rise structure above progressively destroys floors below it is likely more irregular and unclear than the adjacent-column overloads of a lateral progressive failure. But each floor is designed only to support the structure above plus dynamic (wind and quake) loads plus safety margin, and the falling structure represents that weight plus its kinetic energy. It also loads the structure below at unplanned places, so I would expect more progressive failures in those floors. It does not have to fall far before it would have the kinetic energy to crush the floor below even if the load were applied where intended.
To Orwell and others: I do not criticize your thinking in general, only your conclusion on WTC 1&2, and regret having to sound dismissive. I am sure that you are good and intelligent people, and I do not claim to be the source or best authority on this. You are very welcome to prove me wrong with evidence and references to engineering studies on that, and I welcome new information on Bldg 7. But the WTC issue should not be referenced in comments to unrelated articles, because few people can know enough to judge without interrupting the commentary, and speculations cannot be allowed to stand.
To Skip Scott: Yes, bldg 7 is an oddity on the limited information I have, so I cannot rule out either controlled demolition, or an extensive debris impact from WTC 1&2 causing another lateral progressive failure. Yes, if bldg 7 was a demolition, the WTC 1&2 disaster could have motivated the demolition, or could have served only as the coverup. Some good videos of the bldg 7 lower structure starting to collapse would say a lot, but I have found only videos of the upper structure falling intact.. But it is clear that 1&2 were not demolitions, so if bldg 7 was, some other motive was needed..
To Skip Scott: The article makes good criticisms of the NIST study on bldg 7, but is not better on bldgs 1&2, because it assumes that the falling structure would somehow land on properly-designed supports below and be stopped, but that is not possible. It claims that the fire damage is not credible simply because unprecedented, but then admits that molten metal poured out of the damaged floor for seven minutes before its collapse, while steel is much weakened before it melts. On evidence of explosions, it cites only witnesses who heard lots of ‘explosions’ (even small building collapses are amazingly noisy), and one photo of a lateral plume below the external dust clouds, which does not show where the internal collapse impacts were occurring, or even that it was emerging rather than falling debris. So it is good to hear, but does not change the picture for bldgs 1&2.
To Cal: that MIT article is interesting, a pre-NIST study showing that impact energy alone was enough to destroy much of the exterior column structure on the impact side, and much of the core column structure of both towers, bringing them almost to the point of collapse. It agrees that the fuel energy was far greater than ordinary furniture fires, that any fire-protection coatings would have been destroyed by the impact, and that fire-protection systems would have been destroyed quickly. It also shows a very much weaker building structure than I had assumed, where the exterior load-bearing columns were easily cut through by the wings.
There is an article today on InformationClearingHouse dot Info that a retired terminally-ill CIA agent has just confessed to blowing up WTC bldg 7 for the CIA.
“Mr. Howard says, “It was a classic controlled demolition with explosives. We used super-fine military grade nanothermite composite materials as explosives. The hard part was getting thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms into the building without causing too much concern. But almost every single office in the Building 7 was rented by the CIA, the Secret Service, or the military, which made it easier.”
““When the building came down, it was such a rush. Everything went exactly to plan. It was so smooth. Everybody was evacuated. Nobody was hurt in WTC 7. We were celebrating. We kept watching replays of the demolition, we had the whiskey and cigars out, and then all of a sudden the strangest thing happened. We all started to worry that it looked a bit too smooth. We watched the tape again and again and again and we started to get paranoid. It looked like a controlled demolition. We thought shit, people are going to question this. And then we heard that people from the street were reporting that they heard the explosions during the afternoon. When we were told that the BBC botched their report and announced to the world that the building collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did… At that point we really thought the gig was up.”
“There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising that the media couldn’t ignore. They’d be funding investigations and demanding to know why they were being lied to. We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up.
“We thought there would be a revolution. It would go all the way to the top, to President Bush. He’d be dragged out of the White House.
“But none of that happened. Almost nobody questioned anything. The media shot down anyone who dared question anything they were told.”
It appears that Mr. Howard considers the WTC 1&2 destruction to be likely part of a common plan, done by other means, but he says that he would not have been aware of that.
July 14, 2017 at 5:19 pm
There is an article today on InformationClearingHouse dot Info that a retired terminally-ill CIA agent has just confessed to blowing up WTC bldg 7 for the CIA
Holy sh*t, Can you see any reason for this man to be lying?
Something else that goes along with this…he said ”follow the money”
Which leds first to Larry Silverstein
Larry Silverstein Building 7
”With the supreme chutzpah that has become his trademark, Silverstein breezes over the demolitions of 9/11/2001 as if they were not even worth remarking on, instead going straight from his new-WTC-7 design meeting in April 2000 to the beginning of construction in 2002.
In 2001, “Lucky Larry,” who had previously owned only WTC-7, orchestrated a deal with his fellow-ultra-Zionist Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the mobbed-up NY Port Authority, and another Zionist extremist billionaire, Frank Lowy, to sell the entire WTC complex to Silverstein and backers on a 100-year lease. The deal was finalized in July, 2001, and Larry took possession of the buildings … and security arrangements. But first, he hard-balled his insurers into doubling the terror insurance coverage and changing the terms to “instant cash payout.”
On September 11th, Larry hit the jackpot. The condemned-for-asbestos and largely vacant Twin Towers, with their obsolete communications infrastructure and money-hemorrhaging balance sheet, were both demolished for free – with 3,000 people inside.
Larry should have been at the Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower, just like every other day. Fortunately, he tells us, his wife reminded him of a dermatologist appointment. His daughter, who always took breakfast with him, made a similarly lame excuse. Both survived … and prospered … while everyone above the 91st floor, including everyone who showed up to have breakfast at Windows on the World, died miserable deaths.
Larry’s luck held out when he demanded double indemnity – on the basis that he had been “victimized” by two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks, namely the two planes – and got it, to the tune of 4. 5 billion dollars. That’s a hefty cash-payout return on a relatively minor investment. (Silverstein put up less than 15 million of his own money to buy the WTC, and his backers had added a little over 100 million.)
Then he went back to court to ask for more than $10 billion more – this time not from his own insurers, but from those of the airlines he falsely blamed for the demolitions.”
The source of the article I posted now indicates in comments that the writer has done very similar bogus articles about secret agent confessions, so scratch that one.
Cal – yes, certainly there are many possible motives for deception involved.
Just read the same article from PCR. Not sure I buy it. Baxter Dmitry is a questionable source for sure.
I don’t dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy, or controlled demolition as a likely scenario, just this story from this source. Sometimes it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I remember the thermite accusations, and I though the same thing you did. Information overload is a distraction tool, to hide the truth within plain sight.
It’s like the JFK assassination where the truth is out there if you care to find it, but officially nothing has changed from the official Warren report narrative. I rarely find anyone who has ever heard of the Church Committee, or anyone can remember what it was all about. How many know that a Memphis jury in 1999 found that MLK’s murder was a government conspiracy? How many know that Bobby was shot from behind with bullets to his head, and that Sirhan Sirhan was standing at least six feet in front of the younger brother of JFK….can anybody say Thane Eugene Cesar?
911 was an inside job. No not a thousand government employees were knowingly involved, but none the less the beast with the tiny head destroyed everything that was good that day in September of 01.
Now pass the tinfoil, ToivoS. Joe
Video of Dutch expert showing molecular structure of advanced grade thermite on tower remnants. Testimony of workers experience flowing molten matter weeks after demolition of towers. Wiring remodel in elevator shafts. Bush brother in charge of security.
Smoking gun, although there are numerous in the “truthers” findings, is the building 7. If that building was not hit and yet was brought down in a controlled demolition manner, confessed to inadvertently by Larry Silverstein. And BBC reported its demise before it happened. That is enough evidence for me and many other to believe there was Thermite and etc involved, not to mention the testimony of the police and firefighters about explosions going on in the basements of each building that came down.
Off subject, but this was to illustrate the so called truthers are on to something very sinister. And I simply refuse to believe a turbined man sitting in a cave could even have the wit to come up with something of this magnitutude.
Parry is alright and he has been right on target in his reporting. I am afraid you come across as a troll despite your praise of him and his past work.
Joe Tedesky, are you still looking to the “Democratic” Wing of the Bird of prey for something
good ???????? As the song goes, with slight alteration, “When Will You Ever Learn?” ??????
Outside of not knowing where else too go, I just maybe a creature of habit after all. I agree orwell, the Democrat’s are not worth the fight….just get me a good candidate. Thanks for the wise advice Joe
Dear Joe: Why aren’t you scared of the Russian Threat???
It’s easy. Everyone’s doing it!
You would undoubtedly get a book deal.
SERIOUSLY, Joe I especially appreciated your point of how
close we are to the 2018 election. We have in the US
a perpetual election. We are already getting the first
negative ads, usually about the 6th or 7th inning of
a baseball game. Of course, no one you have ever heard about
takes any responsiblity etc. etc. They just prove (they say)
beyond the shadow of a doubt that a Democratic candidate
is a hypocrite and “just another politican.” Only
the last can be true, of course, as despite some
illusions, ALL of those elected to any office in any
Thanks again, Joe.
—-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
What gets me, is when these 911 doubters without hearing any details of why people question 911, they rapidly go to calling a 911 truther a conspiracy nut. Yeah, that will do it, every time. So insult me without any debate, or airing of the issues, and call me names on top of it. Wow, their intelligent sophistication is remarkable, and these geniuses ended up this way all but for a college education. I always say, if people want to put this suspicion to rest, then answer the 911 truther questions, why don’t ya. But David you know it never works that way.
Dave thanks for the conversation Joe
That’s where I’m at David, thanks for the knowledge, as I don’t feel that a lone Joe
The 911 commission was no different than the Warren commission.
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
“The approach taken by Brennan’s task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, ‘Many of the key judgments…rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.’ There is no better indication of a tendency toward ‘group think’ than that statement. Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this ‘body of reporting’ was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
“The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
‘President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of ‘analysis of alternatives’ mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA’s vaunted ‘Red Cell’ was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as ‘What if President Putin is telling the truth?’
‘Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach to Brennan’s foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia NIA—the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
‘The excuse that Brennan’s source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous—both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA’s mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
‘President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president’s most recent comments were made on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
“The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president’s statements appear factually sound.”
Throwing a Curveball at ‘Intelligence Community Consensus’ on Russia
By Scott Ritter
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC, as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders aren’t going to listen them?
Abe, I’m always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site where they can be shared, I’d really like to know about it. I’ve tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain historical events you’ve told us about.
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
…afterthought…couldn’t the film be shown on RT America?
Would that not enable Bowder’s employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT.
I believe that Nekrasov does not like RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov.
The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view, as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Good point, Kiza! Nevertheless RT America does provide a much greater diversity of opinion than commercial channels and even PBS. The “news” segments avoid criticism of Putin and go soft on Trump but programs like “The Big Picture” and “On Contact” have provocative interviews and don’t spare Trump’s policies. I especially enjoy the business news(Boom Bust) which is global in nature and provides a platform for critics like Richard Wolff and Marshal Auerbach.
…nice backgrounder for an ever evolving story…censorship is censorship by any other name!
“[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.”
The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl clutching.
This is interesting:
“In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank—for which he was paid $500,000. “Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia. Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder, a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance officials, among others, participated in the fraud.” The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia relations would suffer as a result.”
Very interesting, Zim.
Mr. Parry’s analysis seems well reasoned. In particular, why would a specious film need to be so actively suppressed.?
Your assertions regarding President Trump’s finances are powerful.
Why then, is so much special prosecutor and media time and energy wasted on whether DNC emails were hacked or leaked?
The non-crime of “collusion with Russia” pales next to your allegations.
Other than geography, what’s the difference between a Russian Oligarch and billionaire in other countries.?
or is it like the distinction between regime and government?
And what is the difference between the Trump and DNC on that?
If you know that, you know that Hillary’s top ten “donor” bribes were all zionists.
And you know that foreign billionaires are not primarily in Russia, and you show no connection.
Then again there are Capital War Crimes that all recent USA presidents are not held accountable for.
You are probably also being observed by the NSA, homeland and some men in black. You never got the feeling that people are watching you….?
I cannot say that I am completely up to speed on the Magnitsky affair. However, unless you have seen the same film as Robert Parry has, I would say that you’re jumping to your conclusion. Also, it may well be that Preet Bhahara was fired to keep him from looking into some of Trump’s financial shenanigans, and that there are shady dealings with Russian oligarchs (some say the Russian Jewish mafia). Possibly that could be something Mr. Parry looks into in the future. However, the Russian oligarchs and the Putin government are not all one and the same. Most of the oligarchs came into being under Yeltsin. Putin worked to rein in the oligarchs to keep capital from fleeing the country. The wisdom of seeking detente with Russia and allowing them a sphere of influence in world affairs is still valid. We need to gain control of our own oligarchs and learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. Preet Bhahara is a good man, and I hope he gets an opportunity to pursue his investigations in the future, even if that means waiting for the next administration.
Nekrasov, though he’s a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product.
Drew – good comment. It’s very hard to “turn”, isn’t it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
BannanaBoat – that too!
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don’t know a thing about the “facts” of the Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a google search suggests this film isn’t going to be available to me unless I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal sum. This will mean they won’t make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that route. I don’t really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information. Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I’m really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Nothing has “happened to Parry.” He continues to be a source of factual information hard to find elsewhere. He doesn’t create facts nor skew them to further a “preconclusion.” I think you better re-read his article and consider the facts that the documentarian uncovered in his research which supports a different conclusion than wanted by our MSM. As for your attempt to throw in a red herring (Preet Bhahara), it doesn’t work.
The whole world would like to see your evidence of a Russia threat. Why do you not mention it?
So far no evidence of any Russia threat of any kind has emerged. Absolutely nothing.
So are you not a zionist troll seeking to destabilize the Iran-Iraq to Syria-Lebanon arc?
Or is it a MIC or Ukraine troll? Or do you have earth-shaking evidence unknown to everyone?
Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist.Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist.Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist.Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist. Zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist zionist.
Jimbo, please make a coherent statement to a definite person. It makes no sense, especially as a response to my comment.
And Hillary Clinton does NOT embody the American Billionaire Class?????????????
Which American “Commander-In-Chief “has NOT embodied the American Billionaire
Class since 1981??????????????
And all commanders in chief were democratically elected by the 99% ‘poor’. Right?
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov’s film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50’s and 60’s:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn’t. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life as we know it, is appalling.
“After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson…”
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain.
Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority.
both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment
Finding splinters, ignoring beams
Changing regimes everywhere
Making the world safe for Democracy
Unless a man they don’t like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch, the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks, it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational discussion here.
Its not anti Semitic if its true….and its true he is a Russian Jew…and its very
obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish Zionist crowd in the US.
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC.
He came off as completely deranged and hysterical.
The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic.
My respect for tucker just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn’t Andrei Nekrasov’s film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can’t you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Parry isn’t keeping the film viewing a secret….He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers here have it. It isn’t up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I’ve come across this problem before.
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet, search for: “????? ?????? ????????? “????? ???????????. ?? ????????”
I’ll keep looking for the film with translation into some other language.
Sorry, the Russian text did not appear. Try with latin alphabet: Film Andreia Nekrasova “Zakon Magnitskogo. Za kulisami”
This is the same dubbed version, on youtube.
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of “genuine American hero” William Browder.
John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis.
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.