Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
OK, here are some more details on the alleged poisoning of Magnistsky. It is a Russian source, so I'm sure I'm going to hear it from some of you but this is all I have now. It does fill in some of the gaps on what they are claiming and how they obtained evidence and their conclusion. Can't tell if this is reliable, but at least we know more now. They are calling it a theory, by the way.
Tests enough to back theory on Magnitsky’s poisoning, Russian prosecutors say
Russian prosecutors say that lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other accomplices of Hermitage Capital CEO William Browder were more than likely poisoned by toxic chemicals containing aluminum compounds
http://tass.com/world/1032910
After Magnitsky’s death, medical tests were carried out and a statement was drawn up on the condition of his internal organs, but at that time, detectives did not pay great attention to that because he was ill, according to the spokesman.
However, when other Browder associates died under similar circumstances, prosecutors and investigators suggested that this was not a coincidence. "They started studying all the documents, even the autopsies. And all of them had a similar medical pattern like Magnitsky," he said. There were deviations from the norm in the cardiovascular system and traces of aluminum were found in blood and in some cases in the liver.
"This provided grounds to develop this theory [on the poisoning]. I stress, this is a theory now," Kurennoy emphasized.
The Hermitage Capital case came to light back in 2008, when the fund’s auditor Sergei Magnitsky was arrested on a tax evasion charge. Having spent 11 months at a Moscow pre-trial detention center, Magnitsky died. Likewise, Valery Kurochkin, Oktai Gassanov and Semyon Korobeinikov, who were considered to be Browder’s accomplices, all died under suspicious circumstances.
sbenois said:
Oh thank God you got the scoop from Tass.
The only place I could find details. It is a fair report though--just gives the facts on the case and does not make judgments. I have no idea where this is headed, or if it has any merit, but it is interesting and related to Bill Browder so I am posting it.
Abby and Robbie Martin cover the Magnitsky Act film! Slowly, the word is getting out.
https://soundcloud.com/media-roots/abby-robbie-analyze-the-magnitsky-act-behind-the-scenes
!
Two nobodies cashing in on something they know nothing about. :: sad trombone noise ::
And Tass? Please remove that nonsense. Not even Paul would post a Tass link.
dave said:
Two nobodies cashing in on something they know nothing about. :: sad trombone noise ::
And Tass? Please remove that nonsense. Not even Paul would post a Tass li
They figured out Browder is a fraud, which is way better than the "somebodies."
The Tass link is fine. What is your problem with it other than it is Tass? Again--I would be glad to post mainstream media links instead--but they either don't know or lie about Bill Browder.
Lucy Komisar rips apart Vanity Fair's latest homage to Browder (here).
Fakery of Marie Brenner’s Browder article in Vanity Fair
https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/11/fakery-of-marie-brenners -browder-article-in-vanity-fair/
This is an analysis of the worst William Browder acolyte article I have seen to date, by Marie Brenner, published by Vanity Fair, November 11, 2018. It eschews evidence and simply writes what Browder says as a stenographer would do. The full text is here. Below are the most egregious excerpts with my comments marked **. They are extensive, as the piece is replete with fakery.
Brenner is a self-described journalist. Nothing in this story would corroborate that. Some writers do well at celebrity profiles. They should not attempt investigative journalism. This is a horror story of how that goes wrong. Her Vanity Fair piece is a fabrication without support or links to evidence. (This critique has a link to document everything I say.) Her story follows the line of US mainstream media that regurgitates William Browder’s statements, so maybe not surprising, but in outrageous detail, it’s even worse. Follow along.
So Lucy accuses Mary Brenner of being a stenographer and then copies everything she, Mary, wrote in Vanity Fair? Is there a stupidity in journalism award? Lucy must have a whole shelf of them.
dave said:
So Lucy accuses Mary Brenner of being a stenographer and then copies everything she, Mary, wrote in Vanity Fair?
She didn’t copy everything, and even if she had, that’s a silly comparison.
Also pretty silly: Komisar’s “gotcha” on the archival Zwerg photo in Browder’s PowerPoint slide. Any viewer who took those images to be the actual beating, the actual handcuffing, the actual gavel and the actual victim (holding a clearly anachronistic newspaper) — rather than clip art — is looking both too hard and not hard enough.
dave said:
So Lucy accuses Mary Brenner of being a stenographer and then copies everything she, Mary, wrote in Vanity Fair? Is there a stupidity in journalism award? Lucy must have a whole shelf of them.
She calls her a stenographer because she records Browder's narrative without challenge. Her piece is a ctitique if Brenner's article, so of course she posts it before critiquing, with evidence. That's what Lucy Komisar does cause she is an awarded investigative journalist and she knows what she is doing. Not sure what you are doing since I know you already know this obvious stuff.
jamie said:
Has Lucy responded to any of Jamison's questions?
1) How do you know they are Jamison's questlons? And I'm someone did at that conference, but the videos are impossible to hear.
Are you still a believer of Bill Browder's story, btw? Please respond.
nan said:
That's what Lucy Komisar does cause she is an awarded investigative journalist and she knows what she is doing.
FWIW, Marie Brenner is also an awarded investigative journalist (a near-contemporary of Komisar’s), who has shown signs of knowing what she is doing.
A tweet like this, however, doesn’t speak well of Brenner’s objectivity* in this case.
https://twitter.com/mariebrenner/status/1018931511981113345?s=21
* A much-maligned journalistic value, but it has its merits
nan said:
jamie said:1) How do you know they are Jamison's questlons? And I'm someone did at that conference, but the videos are impossible to hear.
Has Lucy responded to any of Jamison's questions?
Because they were part of Jamison's presentation - I already responded to this. All you need to do to see that they are his questions is to - Watch the video YOU posted with Jamison. Even if you can't hear the audio - you can see they are part of his presentation on this video at 24:32:
He also call out and questions Lucy a few minutes before it.Do I believe Browder? Parts can come into question - but I'm more on his side then Lucy and Andrei.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:FWIW, Marie Brenner is also an awarded investigative journalist (a near-contemporary of Komisar’s), who has shown signs of knowing what she is doing.
That's what Lucy Komisar does cause she is an awarded investigative journalist and she knows what she is doing.
Not familiar with her work, but here she does look competent at all--she just gives him a free ride.
jamie said:
nan said:Because they were part of Jamison's presentation - I already responded to this. All you need to do to see that they are his questions is to - Watch the video YOU posted with Jamison. Even if you can't hear the audio - you can see they are part of his presentation on this video at 24:32:
jamie said:1) How do you know they are Jamison's questlons? And I'm someone did at that conference, but the videos are impossible to hear.
Has Lucy responded to any of Jamison's questions?He also call out and questions Lucy a few minutes before it.
Do I believe Browder? Parts can come into question - but I'm more on his side then Lucy and Andrei.
Ok, I see that they are his questions, although I can't really read them well, nor see if he provides evidence for his assertions. Going through his presentation just casually, he presents false information such as saying that Magnitsky was beaten. There is no evidence to support that. What makes you on his side? Where is the evidence? Lucy and Andrei provide evidence for all of their accusations. Andrei, in fact, posted his presentation on line--I posted it previously: http://magnitskyact.com/offshorealertlondon. And discussed it here:
Andre talked about Firestone's presentation, especially at 10:57. Nekersov said he spoke before Firestone and tried to be specific and that there are so many aspects to the case. Garland brings up Firestone again and asks about what he said, considering that he was Magnitsky's boss. Nekersov said he was glad Firestone came--Browder was invited but did not show, but sad because he said everyone only got 10-15 minutes to talk and he only talked about the facts showing the timeline (which is included in the link above) and could not critique what Firestone said after him. He said Jaimson did not address any of his presentation or argue with him or Lucy. He said he basically accused them of being "Pro-Russian" (which looks to be the crux of his questions and comments that I can see). Nakersov said Jaimison spent a lot of time talking about the conditions in Russian jails, and also claimed Magnitsky was murdered (which you seem to find incredible when others say but are evidently OK with Jaimison saying it), despite there not being evidence of that. Overall, he said Firestone robotically repeats Browder's story (without evidence). What has nan and Sputnik reported on after Browder - and on anyone else? If you can't read the question from Jamison - here's a few of them:
Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?
Why do you fail to mention that the fraudulent refunds continued after Sergie's death?
Who first filed the complaint? How can you claim that Starova filed the complaint first?
How did Starova become one of the legitimate owner of Russia's largest hedge fund?
Why do you fail to mention that the DOJ found RG's entire story of us being behind the thefts to be false?
Why does Lucy not mention that one of her key witnesses is in jail?
jamie said:
What has nan and Sputnik reported on after Browder - and on anyone else? If you can't read the question from Jamison - here's a few of them:
Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?
Why do you fail to mention that the fraudulent refunds continued after Sergie's death?
Who first filed the complaint? How can you claim that Starova filed the complaint first?
How did Starova become one of the legitimate owner of Russia's largest hedge fund?
Why do you fail to mention that the DOJ found RG's entire story of us being behind the thefts to be false?
Why does Lucy not mention that one of her key witnesses is in jail?
They sound like good questions, but there are no details and no context or evidence to back them up. What makes you think they prove Jaimison right and Lucy/Andrei wrong? Browder also alleged lots of things, but then had nothing to prove they were right or relevant.
Interesting article about Putin and the negative effect of the Magnistsky Act. Not sure what to make of this, but something to think about:
What Drives the Russian State
Since Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, analysis of Russia, both inside and outside the country, has largely focused on two interpretations of his regime. The first argues that Russia is a mafia state in which the main aim of the ruling elite is to steal money at home to conceal and spend abroad. The second states that Mr. Putin is a hostage of his own popularity and that whatever is done in or by Russia is done for the sake of his approval rating.
These theories provide a convenient framework for making sense of Russia; they are also tinged with moralism. For these reason, many politicians, analysts and scholars both in Russia and in the West have embraced them. But these explanations fundamentally clash with reality. To truly understand what motivates the Kremlin, we must see how the Kremlin itself undermines those myths.
The 2008 financial crisis, the first major global crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union, undermined trust in the Western economy. Then in 2012, the United State introduced the Magnitsky Act, a raft of sanctions on Russian businessmen and allies of Mr. Putin. Combined, these two events exposed the West’s unreliability economically and politically.
By contrast, Mr. Putin appeared a better guarantor of the ruling class’s assets. During the economic crisis, he became Russia’s lender of last resort, giving huge amounts of state money to help big Russian businessmen bail out their companies that had received margin calls from their Western creditors. An idea took hold: The stronger the state, the bigger its capacity to protect. And the projection of global power was proof of strength.
nan said:
jamie said:They sound like good questions, but there are no details and no context or evidence to back them up. What makes you think they prove Jaimison right and Lucy/Andrei wrong? Browder also alleged lots of things, but then had nothing to prove they were right or relevant.
What has nan and Sputnik reported on after Browder - and on anyone else? If you can't read the question from Jamison - here's a few of them:
Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?
Why do you fail to mention that the fraudulent refunds continued after Sergie's death?
Who first filed the complaint? How can you claim that Starova filed the complaint first?
How did Starova become one of the legitimate owner of Russia's largest hedge fund?
Why do you fail to mention that the DOJ found RG's entire story of us being behind the thefts to be false?
Why does Lucy not mention that one of her key witnesses is in jail?
ok, so no one will ever be answer those questions - great answer! The context and evidence for the questions as well as sources were included in Jamison's presentation. I'm glad you agree that they were good questions.
Normally people who investigate something would like to tell the whole story. Andrei and Lucy - not so much.
jamie said:
nan said:ok, so no one will ever be answer those questions - great answer! The context and evidence for the questions as well as sources were included in Jamison's presentation. I'm glad you agree that they were good questions.
jamie said:They sound like good questions, but there are no details and no context or evidence to back them up. What makes you think they prove Jaimison right and Lucy/Andrei wrong? Browder also alleged lots of things, but then had nothing to prove they were right or relevant.
What has nan and Sputnik reported on after Browder - and on anyone else? If you can't read the question from Jamison - here's a few of them:
Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?
Why do you fail to mention that the fraudulent refunds continued after Sergie's death?
Who first filed the complaint? How can you claim that Starova filed the complaint first?
How did Starova become one of the legitimate owner of Russia's largest hedge fund?
Why do you fail to mention that the DOJ found RG's entire story of us being behind the thefts to be false?
Why does Lucy not mention that one of her key witnesses is in jail?
Normally people who investigate something would like to tell the whole story. Andrei and Lucy - not so much.
Perhaps they did answer those questions, or perhaps those questions are based on lies. If these are so great, why does Jaime not post them on-line with his presentation, as Andrei has? There is really no there there with these questions without evidence. Give me the evidence. Let's start with the first one --"Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?" Who got the money and what is that based on and how is that relevant to Bill Browder being a crook? Andrei said Jamison did not address any of the timelines he presented and just blamed everything on the Russians--that's what this question seems to do. Please let me know what you find out.
Perhaps they did answer those questions, or perhaps those questions are based on lies. - what on earth does this even mean? Now you're questioning what a question is?.
I believe Jamison had proof that people were still making money - have you watched his presentation - or can't you hear it - perhaps there's a transcript somewhere.
Suspicious to me is why 99.9% of anti browder news pieces come from pro-putin propaganda sites. For someone who likes to follow the money- you certainly aren't doing it here.
What did you think of Jamison's response to Lucy's claims?
jamie said:
Perhaps they did answer those questions, or perhaps those questions are based on lies. - what on earth does this even mean? Now you're questioning what a question is?.
I believe Jamison had proof that people were still making money - have you watched his presentation - or can't you hear it - perhaps there's a transcript somewhere.
Suspicious to me is why 99.9% of anti browder news pieces come from pro-putin propaganda sites. For someone who likes to follow the money- you certainly aren't doing it here.
What did you think of Jamison's response to Lucy's claims?
You believe he had proof but you don't have it? Then why do you believe he has it? Based on what. I'm not questioning what a question is, but questioning how a set of questions is evidence of truth. I looked for a transcript and could not find one. I will try to listen to his presentation again, but it was poor quality. The anti-Browder stuff does not all come from pro-Putin sites--it comes from alternative sites because mainstream news gives him a free pass. They accept whatever he says without question. Why does that not bother you? If you beleive in following the money, than why are you not following Jaimison's money? He was the owner of the business that hid the money! He was Magnitsky's boss--probably directed him to do what he went to jail for (not whistleblowing). He is a suspect! Lucy Komisar is not getting rich on this--she is reduced to pathetic GoFundMe pleas.
Which part of Jamison's talk do you need proof on? He has sources for most of the points.
And please let me know where your sources are on the latest revelations - like Oleg - on proving that Browder poisoned Magnitsky.
jamie said:
Which part of Jamison's talk do you need proof on? He has sources for most of the points.
And please let me know where your sources are on the latest revelations - like Oleg - on proving that Browder poisoned Magnitsky.
I specifically asked you to start with the first bolded question:
Why do you ignore who got the money and that the Russian Government isn't looking for it?
What is that about? Where is the evidence for that and why is it important?
I posted all the information I had about the allegations of Browder poisoning Magnitsky, and there is nothing else at this time. None of the people I regularly listen to for Browder information has brought this up or discussed it. Oleg Lurie, by the way, did not say that Browder poisoned Magnistky. He said the allegations were credible or something like that--and that should be no surprise considering his testimony about his meeting with Magniksky, where Magnitsky indicated that his employers wanted him to take the fall for the tax evasion. Magnistsky dead serves Browder a lot more than it would serve Putin. But, I'm not saying Browder killed Magnitsky cause I can't--don't have the facts on that one. Seems unlikely, but I can't believe Browder can go on for so many years without the mainstream media even asking him a challenging question, so truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, especially with this case.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Advertisement
I watched them all including Jaimison, but I could hardly hear any of them. I'm going to try again with my headphones and a glass of wine. Wish they would publish a transcript.