Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?

nan said:

jamie said:
I love it how Krainer has said "My book, published only last month (August 2017), was starting to get some traction and in its first four weeks gained very positive reviews from readers (seven 5-star reviews and one 4-star review). "
8 reviews!!!!!   That's getting traction in his world.  LOL

 He gets zero press on this and they take his book off twice.  The mainstream media accepts Browder's story without question so how would people have heard of Krainer?  Fault lines radio, Lucy Koimer, and the film director are about his only media contacts and they are not popular. Eight reviews in a month is probably good for book with that going against it.  I've seen self-published books on their longer with no reviews.    I would also give him a 5 star review if I could.  I sent you a copy of the book.  Did you read it?

 I skimmed - it pretty lame.  Pure speculation - probably falls in line with books like the The Devil's Chessboard.  

jamie said:
NAn - you need to really start reading this conspi

nan said:

I'm reading the book "The Devil's Chessboard" right now and it's jaw dropping scary.  The first head of the CIA, Allen Dulles committed treason and actively worked with the Nazi's against the US.  His bother, Foster, who has an airport named after him, helped.  They got away with murder and chaos. They started the original McCarthy era to get rid of "New Deal" politicians in favor of those that support Wall Street and oligarchs.   A lot like today.

 You really need to look into what you're reading:

The second half of the book takes the reader past the details of the early Cold War into a world made up entirely of Talbot’s opinions and cherry-picked quotations from government and media documents. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-60-no-3/seeger-the-devils-chessboard.html
But they're not conspiracy theories to YOU - just to most people.  And this is only feedback from the CIA (Deep state) - so you can't trust their take on the book.

In the author’s view, there is a direct CIA link to Lee Harvey Oswald, who he suggests was set up years in advance as an agency fall guy for some longstanding CIA intelligence operation that Talbot cannot further explain.

Unfortunately, The Devil’s Chessboard will serve as a textbook for many conspiracy theory devotees and others who are convinced “a secret government” runs the United States from the shadows. It is equally unfortunate that a book whose important research provides an auspicious beginning ends with speculation and conjecture.

 So, the CIA does not like a negative book written about the CIA.  Of course they don't .  The Devil's Chessboard is not some nutcase conspiracy theory book.  It was written by a New York Times bestselling author and was reviewed positively by legitimate and respected sources.  On the inside cover are glowing reviews by Salon.com, New York Magazine, Boston Globe, Daily Beast, Bookslut, Kirkus Review (who starred it), Library Journal, Business Standard, Washington Life, and Counterpunch.  It's a good read!   Nan gives it 5 stars!!!!!!  

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I love it how Krainer has said "My book, published only last month (August 2017), was starting to get some traction and in its first four weeks gained very positive reviews from readers (seven 5-star reviews and one 4-star review). "
8 reviews!!!!!   That's getting traction in his world.  LOL

 He gets zero press on this and they take his book off twice.  The mainstream media accepts Browder's story without question so how would people have heard of Krainer?  Fault lines radio, Lucy Koimer, and the film director are about his only media contacts and they are not popular. Eight reviews in a month is probably good for book with that going against it.  I've seen self-published books on their longer with no reviews.    I would also give him a 5 star review if I could.  I sent you a copy of the book.  Did you read it?

 I skimmed - it pretty lame.  Pure speculation - probably falls in line with books like the The Devil's Chessboard.  

He provides evidence for all of his statements.  There are notes in the back with sources.  The Devil's Chessboard does the same.   

Mikhail Khordorkovsky- More on the Mob-Connected Oligarch who has Lobbied the US for Over a Decade. Gary Kasparov also mentioned as well as connection to Steele Document.  Basically, they want to overthrow Putin and put the oligarchs back in charge so they can finish the looting.

nan said:
Mikhail Khordorkovsky- More on the Mob-Connected Oligarch who has Lobbied the US for Over a Decade. Gary Kasparov also mentioned as well as connection to Steele Document.  Basically, they want to overthrow Putin and put the oligarchs back in charge so they can finish the looting.

 Great - waste 18 more minutes of our lives - can you PLEASE sum up what you learned from this - instead of making us watch it? 

In future- if you post anything from Sputnik - please include this link as a footnote to give the reader a better understanding (warning):  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after-a-week-of-russian-propaganda-i-was-questioning-everything

They defended story after story that critiqued, mocked, or proffered unproven theories about the West, especially on foreign policy, as more than well-deserved. Russia watchers have a word for this: “whataboutism,” meaning efforts to discredit the West in general instead of refuting individual arguments. Sputnik calls it telling the untold.

jamie said:
In future- if you post anything from Sputnik - please include this link as a footnote to give the reader a better understanding (warning):  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after-a-week-of-russian-propaganda-i-was-questioning-everything

They defended story after story that critiqued, mocked, or proffered unproven theories about the West, especially on foreign policy, as more than well-deserved. Russia watchers have a word for this: “whataboutism,” meaning efforts to discredit the West in general instead of refuting individual arguments. Sputnik calls it telling the untold.

But, that's not remotely true.  That's just your view based on your views about Russia. 

nan said:

jamie said:
In future- if you post anything from Sputnik - please include this link as a footnote to give the reader a better understanding (warning):  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after-a-week-of-russian-propaganda-i-was-questioning-everything

They defended story after story that critiqued, mocked, or proffered unproven theories about the West, especially on foreign policy, as more than well-deserved. Russia watchers have a word for this: “whataboutism,” meaning efforts to discredit the West in general instead of refuting individual arguments. Sputnik calls it telling the untold.

But, that's not remotely true.  That's just your view based on your views about Russia. 

 what isn't true - did you read the article?

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:
In future- if you post anything from Sputnik - please include this link as a footnote to give the reader a better understanding (warning):  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after-a-week-of-russian-propaganda-i-was-questioning-everything

They defended story after story that critiqued, mocked, or proffered unproven theories about the West, especially on foreign policy, as more than well-deserved. Russia watchers have a word for this: “whataboutism,” meaning efforts to discredit the West in general instead of refuting individual arguments. Sputnik calls it telling the untold.

But, that's not remotely true.  That's just your view based on your views about Russia. 

 what isn't true - did you read the article?

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  Not a very curious person, that's for sure.  It was a very unfair and negative portrayal by someone who just confirmed their preconceived ideas.  I'm sure you got a chuckle out of it and felt like you were vindicated.  They use Snopes the final word on Syria--as if they really have the bandwith to do that (Does Snopes send people to Syria?). Remember, the NPR interview with Bill Browder?  The one where the interviewer just fawned all over him and complemented him and hung on every word without a single challenging question?  People who work in places where they do that should not be throwing stones.  Lee Stranahan, a Republican who used to work at the horrible Beitbart, has been doing a tremendous job of real investigative reporting on Browder and the links between him and Kordorkofsky using real tools and inquiry.  She could learn a lot from him, but she thinks he's all propaganda, unlike NPR, where they give Bill Browder free publicity.  I'll take the Republican Breitbart guy over her, and I hate Breitbart and Republicans.

jamie said:

nan said:
Mikhail Khordorkovsky- More on the Mob-Connected Oligarch who has Lobbied the US for Over a Decade. Gary Kasparov also mentioned as well as connection to Steele Document.  Basically, they want to overthrow Putin and put the oligarchs back in charge so they can finish the looting.

 Great - waste 18 more minutes of our lives - can you PLEASE sum up what you learned from this - instead of making us watch it? 

 You should watch it but I will supply notes when I can.  This starts out about Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whom the CIA said (in 2005) was involved with the mob.  Since 2005, Joe Biden, John McCain and Obama have supported Mikhail Khororkovsky who is connected to the mob.  And Mikhail Khordorkovsky has said he wants to lead Russia post-Putin [edited to add my notes--I know there are articles that deny this--but that is his real motivation].  This is the guy who is in jail for committing fraud, the fomer richest guy in Russia.  He was worth 8 bill and now worth 2 billion.  And here is the question:  If you are McCain, Biden and Obama--why would you support this guy?  And no one has ever asked that.  

NIxon points out that at this point Obama is a new senator and he was probably picked to do this so he could introduce a bill--not necessarily understanding it--McCain and Biden are probably the ones who really have a motive here.  Stranahan says McCain and Biden need to answer for it.  The open web browsers to do research.  They go to Open Secrets.org.  They search for Corbiere Trust company.  Click on one story from 2006.  They do some searches and show how Corbiere Trust paid for Senate Resolution 322.  To support Khordorkovsky.  Lobbying money was paid to support Khodorkovsky. Khordorkovsky controls Corbiere. It is one of his companies.  He is still in jail, BTW.  Now go back to Open Secrets and look under the lobbyist tab and you ABCO Worldwide.  This is where Jonathan Weiner, who is buddies with Christopher Steele works.  

Now look at the list of lobbyists for Corbiere.  Click on John Bonker.  Look at who he is a lobbyist for--another one controlled by Khordorkovsky.  If you type in "Russia Rule of Law Violations" and find his testimony.  It was a hearing from 2015.  If you do a search, the transcript of the hearing.  Search for "Bonker."  This is Chis Smith--the rep.  . . talks about Don Bonker history--so your lobbyiest money buys "shout out time" from a congressman.  Garland points out the whitnesses listed:  The Podesta Group, people from Yukos oil company, and every witness is tied to Khordorkovsky.  It's a kangaroo court.  The hearing was a sham by the US Congress to support Khordorkovsky is not mentioned.  This is propaganda and kangaroo trial--every witness is paid for by Khordorkovsky.  Guy Karamamruza (sp?) was instrumental in 2012 in pushing the Magnitsky act.  He works with Khordorkovsky and runs "Open Russia"  which is controlled by Khordorkovsky.  They don't mention Khordorkovsky because he is a bad guy.  It's all hidden.  People ask " How does Browder have so much clout?  It's because he's hooked up with another billionaire (Khordorkovsky). Nixon mentions "Putin-con" where Gary Kasporov, Bat Sinko (?) and others were and they are all connected (anti-Putin group--looking to overthrow Putin).  They talk about the guy in Russia who was supposed to be dead but showed at a party.  Anyway, these people have a plot to get rid of Putin and put in Khordorkovsky.  David Kramer, Gary Kasporov, and Guy Karamamruza -- and all connected to the Steele document.  David Kramer was called before Congress for Russiagate and pled the 5th. Russiagate is a fraud.  These guys would get amnesty and lose 5th amendment rights.  Also look up Don Bosner, From US Russia business council and see members.  Notice 1, one member is the Open World Leadership Center (Where Micheal Isnakov met the Ukrainian leader).  This is a big deal.  Weapons companies are also on that board.  . . . You really need to listen to figure out what i am saying. (I'm falling asleep--will try to fix these notes later if  I can). . 

I think I made a wrong turn somewhere.

Is this the chemtrail thread?

Is Sputnik allowed to criticize Putin?  

Are you 100% they are NOT Russian propaganda?  

Sputnik was launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by an Executive Order of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013.

Is this true about Stranahan?   Stranahan had claimed that Breitbart had been insufficiently supportive of his investigations and theories which without any evidence asserted that Chobani was at the center of a grand conspiracy to replace American workers with Syrian refugees, and conceal sexual assaults and outbreaks of tuberculosis.

nan said:

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  

 Teenager - that's pretty insulting - here's her bio:

http://www.lizflock.com/about/

Here's her book - that got 30 REVIEWS on Amazon - over 4 times as many as Krainer's book!

https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Shifting-Sea-Marriage-Mumbai/dp/0062456482

Are you saying NPR is worse then RT or Sputnick?

drummerboy said:
I think I made a wrong turn somewhere.
Is this the chemtrail thread?

 No.  Not even close.  If you watch the video, they show you the evidence using Open Secrets. org.  The same website you have used to present evidence on MOL.  So don't be a hypocrite.  They are following the money.  Are you going to argue that money is a conspiracy theory?

jamie said:
Is Sputnik allowed to criticize Putin?  
Are you 100% they are NOT Russian propaganda?  
Sputnik was launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by an Executive Order of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013.
Is this true about Stranahan?   Stranahan had claimed that Breitbart had been insufficiently supportive of his investigations and theories which without any evidence asserted that Chobani was at the center of a grand conspiracy to replace American workers with Syrian refugees, and conceal sexual assaults and outbreaks of tuberculosis.

 Yes, Sputnik is allowed to criticize Putin, but who knows, I've never noticed but, perhaps they are not allowed to talk about some topics--as happens on MSNBC, CNN, and FOX (like Yemen or wealth inequality, or anti-war, or how come they have so many ex-CIA talking heads).  It is still good to hear their take on issues.  You should never get your news on any single source.  You are right to be skeptical.  You should be skeptical of everything. But, that's why you listen to multiple sources and then compare.  That's why the article you showed me was total BS--the person who wrote it assumed NPR was NOT propaganda and thus Sputnik, which gave her a different view, had to be all lies. She was exposed to some new ideas and ran away without investigating beyond Snopes (which always agrees with MSM).  In this video, Stranahan says, something like "I know because I'm on Sputnik I have to be extra careful because people will criticize me for that--so I have to go the extra mile and make sure to show all the evidence. If you listen to the videos, they are using evidence based on facts.  They might be wrong, but you have to look at the evidence produced and then disagree based on other facts.  We are lucky to have Sputnik available, and news from any other countries, because as I keep saying and you don't seem to listen-- you should not get all your news from the US MSM.  People who ONLY listen to US MSM and dismiss Sputnik and other sources of news as propaganda are the most brainwashed of all.  

jamie said:

nan said:

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  

 Teenager - that's pretty insulting - here's her bio:
http://www.lizflock.com/about/
Here's her book - that got 30 REVIEWS on Amazon - over 4 times as many as Krainer's book!
https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Shifting-Sea-Marriage-Mumbai/dp/0062456482

Are you saying NPR is worse then RT or Sputnick?

 She is a terrible journalist, who gets paid to uphold the mainstream media and to ridicule other sources. Of course her book has more reviews than Krainer. Anyone who works in and follows mainstream ideas will get more attention than someone who is censored.  That's why you put the MOL politics section in a subforum--so fewer people will see it. Are you now going to complain that not enough people are interested in politics? Bill Browder has many pages of glowing 5 star reviews and anyone who actually spends time examining his story (such as his own comments made under oath) sees he's a fraud.  But, they never bother to look at another source--and his lawyer has gone the extra mile to make sure they don't even know the Krainer book exists.  They try to do the same for the movie.  Why does that not sound alarm bells for so many of you?  

Because it's all nonsense.

sbenois said:
Because it's all nonsense.

 And you base that on what?  I use facts and evidence.  You troll.  

Nan,

You asked a question and I answered it.  If you don't like the answer tough ****.    The stuff you post is ******** and when you ask a question like "based on what", how exactly is one supposed to offer you an answer that you will ever accept when you will just dredge up more and more and more "facts" from z-level websites that have credibility only in your eyes.

You, Nan, are the troll.

Lucy Komisar reviews the New Yorker Browder story and gives it 0 stars:

The New Yorker’s fake Browder story

https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/08/the-new-yorkers-fake-browder-story/

excerpt:

How do you get credibility for a story that is mostly lies? You throw in a few negatives about the person you are going to white-wash. Then you repeat all his unproved assertions as if they were fact. And you don’t bother to provide evidence. And you ignore the major story you ought to be telling: how conman William Browder got western governments and media to block the Russians from collecting some $70 million he owes on taxes and illicit stock buys. And how that helped provoke ColdWar 2.0.

nan said:

Yes, the US put Yeltsen in office and they bragged about it in Time Magazine. Read the article I linked and they explain exactly how it was done.  I was originally going to cut and paste the whole section on that, but I was afraid Jaime would yell at me. 

 Yeltsin was President of Russia before the break-up of the Soviet Union.  I don't even have to look that up, and anybody who remembers when the Soviet Union broke up shouldn't have to either.  As things were going south, Gorbachev was detained outside of Moscow, by a group that didn't like how he was letting the republics have more autonomy.  Yeltsin made himself a hero in that episode, going into the streets of Moscow, making his Russian government building the center of opposition to the guys in the Kremlin.  In the end, Gorbachev was still in power, although the USSR fell apart not long after, leaving the republics as independent countries.  And Yeltsin was President of the biggest one, which inherited practically all of the USSR military.

That's a long-winded way of saying, if you're old enough to remember the end of the USSR, you should check a timeline before making a claim that the United States made Yeltsin the President of Russia.

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  

 Teenager - that's pretty insulting - here's her bio:
http://www.lizflock.com/about/
Here's her book - that got 30 REVIEWS on Amazon - over 4 times as many as Krainer's book!
https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Shifting-Sea-Marriage-Mumbai/dp/0062456482

Are you saying NPR is worse then RT or Sputnick?

 She is a terrible journalist, who gets paid to uphold the mainstream media and to ridicule other sources. 

 Other than the fact that you disagree with her impression of Sputnik radio, what's the basis for that comment?

nan said:

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  Not a very curious person, that's for sure.  It was a very unfair and negative portrayal by someone who just confirmed their preconceived ideas.  I'm sure you got a chuckle out of it and felt like you were vindicated.  They use Snopes the final word on Syria--as if they really have the bandwith to do that (Does Snopes send people to Syria?). Remember, the NPR interview with Bill Browder?  The one where the interviewer just fawned all over him and complemented him and hung on every word without a single challenging question?  People who work in places where they do that should not be throwing stones.  Lee Stranahan, a Republican who used to work at the horrible Beitbart, has been doing a tremendous job of real investigative reporting on Browder and the links between him and Kordorkofsky using real tools and inquiry.  She could learn a lot from him, but she thinks he's all propaganda, unlike NPR, where they give Bill Browder free publicity.  I'll take the Republican Breitbart guy over her, and I hate Breitbart and Republicans.

 So much to comment on there, especially about the lack of foundation.  

I see you're still bothered by the fact that most reputable news outlets don't believe the hatchet job against the White Helmets that you support.  And Snopes doesn't have to go to Syria to debunk the lies mentioned in the article (especially the one where footage from a movie was used for a claim that the White Helmets were faking attacks, since Snopes found the real footage).

nohero said:

nan said:Yes, the US put Yeltsen in office and they bragged about it in Time Magazine. Read the article I linked and they explain exactly how it was done.  I was originally going to cut and paste the whole section on that, but I was afraid Jaime would yell at me. 

 Yeltsin was President of Russia before the break-up of the Soviet Union.  I don't even have to look that up, and anybody who remembers when the Soviet Union broke up shouldn't have to either.  As things were going south, Gorbachev was detained outside of Moscow, by a group that didn't like how he was letting the republics have more autonomy.  Yeltsin made himself a hero in that episode, going into the streets of Moscow, making his Russian government building the center of opposition to the guys in the Kremlin.  In the end, Gorbachev was still in power, although the USSR fell apart not long after, leaving the republics as independent countries.  And Yeltsin was President of the biggest one, which inherited practically all of the USSR military.
That's a long-winded way of saying, if you're old enough to remember the end of the USSR, you should check a timeline before making a claim that the United States made Yeltsin the President of Russia.

 Yes, Yeltsin was President before the break-up--he was the one that wanted it and guess who helped him do that?  Did you guess George Bush? 

BUSH AIDED YELTSIN IN '91 COUP, NEW REPORT SAYS https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/05/15/bush-aided-yeltsin-in-91-coup-new-report-says/ff37eef3-b524-4c4f-a26b-9f927c11a405/?utm_term=.86ce6b1d1bf3

Clinton got him reelected in 1996, which was difficult because he was not well liked.  I have posted two links describing how that happened and reference to the bragging about in Time Magazine. Here is a third: 

Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US

nohero said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

 I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  

 Teenager - that's pretty insulting - here's her bio:
http://www.lizflock.com/about/
Here's her book - that got 30 REVIEWS on Amazon - over 4 times as many as Krainer's book!
https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Shifting-Sea-Marriage-Mumbai/dp/0062456482

Are you saying NPR is worse then RT or Sputnick?

 She is a terrible journalist, who gets paid to uphold the mainstream media and to ridicule other sources. 

 Other than the fact that you disagree with her impression of Sputnik radio, what's the basis for that comment?

That was enough.  I looked at her bio and she has a special interest in global topics about women and children.  Perhaps she is better when she is reporting on her real area of competence. 

sbenois said:
Nan,
You asked a question and I answered it.  If you don't like the answer tough ****.    The stuff you post is ******** and when you ask a question like "based on what", how exactly is one supposed to offer you an answer that you will ever accept when you will just dredge up more and more and more "facts" from z-level websites that have credibility only in your eyes.
You, Nan, are the troll.

 You asked me about the US getting Yeltsin elected in Russia.  I provided evidence that happened and you keep saying I have no credibility.  Please explain how the US did not help Yeltsin get elected, despite the bragging about it on a Time Magazine cover.  Is Time Magazine a Putin Puppet?

nohero said:

nan said: I read most of that article, written by the person (a teenager, maybe?) who works at National Propaganda Radio and they were just sure everything they heard on Sputnik was a lie.  Not a very curious person, that's for sure.  It was a very unfair and negative portrayal by someone who just confirmed their preconceived ideas.  I'm sure you got a chuckle out of it and felt like you were vindicated.  They use Snopes the final word on Syria--as if they really have the bandwith to do that (Does Snopes send people to Syria?). Remember, the NPR interview with Bill Browder?  The one where the interviewer just fawned all over him and complemented him and hung on every word without a single challenging question?  People who work in places where they do that should not be throwing stones.  Lee Stranahan, a Republican who used to work at the horrible Beitbart, has been doing a tremendous job of real investigative reporting on Browder and the links between him and Kordorkofsky using real tools and inquiry.  She could learn a lot from him, but she thinks he's all propaganda, unlike NPR, where they give Bill Browder free publicity.  I'll take the Republican Breitbart guy over her, and I hate Breitbart and Republicans.

 So much to comment on there, especially about the lack of foundation.  
I see you're still bothered by the fact that most reputable news outlets don't believe the hatchet job against the White Helmets that you support.  And Snopes doesn't have to go to Syria to debunk the lies mentioned in the article (especially the one where footage from a movie was used for a claim that the White Helmets were faking attacks, since Snopes found the real footage).

 Start another thread on the White Helmets if you want to discuss evidence about that.  Let's critique Snopes as a reliable source using the Bill Browder story, since that is the thread topic.  Here is how Snopes handles the Bill Browder story:

Fake news from the self-annointed truth-teller: why Snopes is a fraud

https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/03/fake-news-from-the-self-annointed-truth-teller-why-snopes-is-a-fake/

She sent them detailed, fact-based evidence and they just ignored it.  I don't discount Snopes for general and quick use, but they should never be the final judgement on any serious topic.  Using them that way is bad journalism.  

nan said:

Yes, Yeltsin was President before the break-up--he was the one that wanted it and guess who helped him do that?  Did you guess George Bush? 

BUSH AIDED YELTSIN IN '91 COUP, NEW REPORT SAYS https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/05/15/bush-aided-yeltsin-in-91-coup-new-report-says/ff37eef3-b524-4c4f-a26b-9f927c11a405/?utm_term=.86ce6b1d1bf3
Clinton got him reelected in 1996, which was difficult because he was not well liked.  I have posted two links describing how that happened and reference to the bragging about in Time Magazine. Here is a third: 
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US

 He was elected President before the coup.  

At this point, you seem to have made a conscious decision not to look at some basic, verifiable historical facts.  

nan said:

Start another thread on the White Helmets if you want to discuss evidence about that.  Let's critique Snopes as a reliable source using the Bill Browder story, since that is the thread topic.  Here is how Snopes handles the Bill Browder story:

 Two thoughts:

1.  The article you don't like mentioned the criticism of the White Helmets, and how primary sources identified by Snopes showed how that was a smear job.  You complained about it, although you didn't use the words "White Helmets", but it was obvious.  I was responding you your comment, not bringing in the topic of the White Helmets.

2.  Thank you for the advice to try to stick to the original topic of a thread.

nan said:

Fake news from the self-annointed truth-teller: why Snopes is a fraud

https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/03/fake-news-from-the-self-annointed-truth-teller-why-snopes-is-a-fake/



She sent them detailed, fact-based evidence and they just ignored it.  I don't discount Snopes for general and quick use, but they should never be the final judgement on any serious topic.  Using them that way is bad journalism.  

 Only people in the "fake news" business call Snopes "fake news".

You use Snopes for the links to sources they provide.  Then you read the sources and evaluate whether to trust those sources.  That's not bad journalism at all.