Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nan said:
ridski said:Who is this person? She seems to be anti-Russian
https://twitter.com/catfitz/status/955995638398967808?s=20
Thread.
Is she anti-Russian the same way anyone who criticizes Netanyahu is anti-Israel? I just want to get a plumb-line for being against entire countries here.
ridski said:
nan said:Is she anti-Russian the same way anyone who criticizes Netanyahu is anti-Israel? I just want to get a plumb-line for being against entire countries here.
ridski said:Who is this person? She seems to be anti-Russian
https://twitter.com/catfitz/status/955995638398967808?s=20
Thread.
Seems to be because she skims over the evidence and just interjects negative views on Russia. Here whole argument seems to be that this can't be real because my reality can't handle it.
nan said:
ridski said:Seems to be because she skims over the evidence and just interjects negative views on Russia. Here whole argument seems to be that this can't be real because my reality can't handle it.
nan said:Is she anti-Russian the same way anyone who criticizes Netanyahu is anti-Israel? I just want to get a plumb-line for being against entire countries here.
ridski said:Who is this person? She seems to be anti-Russian
https://twitter.com/catfitz/status/955995638398967808?s=20
Thread.
Could also be because the story the Russian government story is selling is horseshit, but you're only willing to believe that the US government lies.
ridski said:
nan said:Could also be because the story the Russian government story is selling is horseshit, but you're only willing to believe that the US government lies.
ridski said:Seems to be because she skims over the evidence and just interjects negative views on Russia. Here whole argument seems to be that this can't be real because my reality can't handle it.
nan said:Is she anti-Russian the same way anyone who criticizes Netanyahu is anti-Israel? I just want to get a plumb-line for being against entire countries here.
ridski said:Who is this person? She seems to be anti-Russian
https://twitter.com/catfitz/status/955995638398967808?s=20
Thread.
It could be, but she does not provide evidence to show that. She just cites a few things and leaves out so much. Very weak argument.
nan said:
It hurts when it is just negative without specific examples that support an argument.
The argument is that the internet is rife with baloney, and that we reduce the risk of spreading it when we make some effort to vet the merits of what we find before sharing it. Specific examples are your comments of 9:51 and 11:00 a.m.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:The argument is that the internet is rife with baloney, and that we reduce the risk of spreading it when we make some effort to vet the merits of what we find before sharing it. Specific examples are your comments of 9:51 and 11:00 a.m.
It hurts when it is just negative without specific examples that support an argument.
What makes them baloney? You don't like Tass, I get it. But, remember, the entire MSM gives Bill Browder a free pass without a single challenging question. That is full blown propaganda. The reports I have posted are fact-based. They are not saying Bill Browder did anything. They are saying what he has been charged with an why. Do you think they are lying about this? Are you even reading what is posted? Also, feel free to post more on this from a different source.
You are all putting me in a Catch 22 situation here. Jaime asks for more information on the Browder charges and I post what is available and I get slammed for posting from Russian sources. Meanwhile the stuff I post just relates what is happening, with no analysis or judgement. It's basic objective reporting, albeit from what you all seem to consider major propaganda. If Tass said traffic lights turn green, yellow, and red, you would slam me the same. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes Russian propaganda is Russian propaganda. You, Lucy and Andrei are eating it up. There are reasons why people haven't bought Lucy's story and why she's only raised $100 out of $5,000. Russian Oligarch corruption goes way beyond Browder, but Lucy and Andrei truly have blinders on and Browder is their #1 target 24/7. I would love to see their reporting on Russian Oligarchs that DOESN'T pertain to Browder.
nan said:
What makes them baloney?
That’s the wrong question. The better question, at least for the argument I posed, is: What makes them not baloney? Your earlier answer to jamie was a shrug: You’re just the messenger, posting whatever you find. That’s how baloney spreads.
jamie said:
Sometimes Russian propaganda is Russian propaganda. You, Lucy and Andrei are eating it up. There are reasons why people haven't bought Lucy's story and why she's only raised $100 out of $5,000. Russian Oligarch corruption goes way beyond Browder, but Lucy and Andrei truly have blinders on and Browder is their #1 target 24/7. I would love to see their reporting on Russian Oligarchs that DOESN'T pertain to Browder.
Lots of statements here backed up by ZERO evidence. If you think Browder is telling the truth, please produce evidence. While under oath, he sure could not.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:That’s the wrong question. The better question, at least for the argument I posed, is: What makes them not baloney? Your earlier answer to jamie was a shrug: You’re just the messenger, posting whatever you find. That’s how baloney spreads.
What makes them baloney?
They are not baloney, because they are just reporting facts such as "Bill Browder was charged with blablabla." Please point out SPECIFIC baloney, cause your accusations of baloney are baloney.
nan said:
jamie said:Lots of statements here backed up by ZERO evidence. If you think Browder is telling the truth, please produce evidence. While under oath, he sure could not.
Sometimes Russian propaganda is Russian propaganda. You, Lucy and Andrei are eating it up. There are reasons why people haven't bought Lucy's story and why she's only raised $100 out of $5,000. Russian Oligarch corruption goes way beyond Browder, but Lucy and Andrei truly have blinders on and Browder is their #1 target 24/7. I would love to see their reporting on Russian Oligarchs that DOESN'T pertain to Browder.
I lied about Lucy raising $100 out of $5,000?
I lied about Lucy and Andrei reporting about any other Russian corruption other then Browder?
The Oleg Lurie testimony has always been a big part of their justifications - this guy met Magnitsky in passing in jail twice, probably for a total of 45 minutes. The same guy who is now saying Browder POISONED Magnitsky! Are you guys serious?
jamie said:
nan said:I lied about Lucy raising $100 out of $5,000?
jamie said:Lots of statements here backed up by ZERO evidence. If you think Browder is telling the truth, please produce evidence. While under oath, he sure could not.
Sometimes Russian propaganda is Russian propaganda. You, Lucy and Andrei are eating it up. There are reasons why people haven't bought Lucy's story and why she's only raised $100 out of $5,000. Russian Oligarch corruption goes way beyond Browder, but Lucy and Andrei truly have blinders on and Browder is their #1 target 24/7. I would love to see their reporting on Russian Oligarchs that DOESN'T pertain to Browder.
I lied about Lucy and Andrei reporting about any other Russian corruption other then Browder?
The Oleg Lurie testimony has always been a big part of their justifications - this guy met Magnitsky in passing in jail twice, probably for a total of 45 minutes. The same guy who is now saying Browder POISONED Magnitsky! Are you guys serious?
Yes, you lied, or something similar.
You misrepresented Lucy's fundraiser. This is one tiny thing she did, and seemingly failed at, and you have ascribed all sorts of negative conclusions. You have turned it into your own personal propaganda in order to smear her as a credible journalist.
Next, you are again creating nothing out of nothing and yes, you have lied or forgotten or did not bother to look. Lucy reports on lots of offshore corruption--not just Browder. This is how she became acquainted with him in the first place. She has also followed Khordakovsky, for example. Andrei reports on Browder because he made a film about him and during the filming realized he was a fraud. Before making this film he was known to be an anti-Putin critic and has written lots on people supposedly poisoned by Putin. So, yes, they both have a history of reporting on Russian corruption. But, so what if they did not? No crime to be interested in one person's crimes. Jaimison lied about that, and used it to distract from Browder.
You are also lying about Lurie, and I corrected you on that before. Lurie made some mild statement about this, but the allegations are based on his testimony which he has no control over. Lurie testified under oath about Magnistsky and Browder, so his comments carry some weight. He also made recordings of his interchange with Browder representatives when they offered him money to change his story. Anyway, Lurie did not say Browder poisoned Magnistsky. I read somewhere (and I can't find it now) that he said the allegations had merit, but he did not say they were true. All of the articles on this say the allegations are based on what Lurie said, although Lurie did not say that Browder poisoned Magnitsky. Lure said that Magnisky told him his employees wanted him to sign a false confession and take the blame. So, the allegations are using Lurie's testimony to show motivation to have Magnistsky killed. This is not based on what Lurie is saying now, as you keep confusing it and bashing Lurie--he's just a guy who testified--he has no control over how some Russians interpret his testimony. He is not involved with the charges against Browder.
So, basically, you have nothing here.
Do you really fully believe Lurie in this context:
Browder values money far more than human life. During the year Mr. Magitsky was in pre-trial detention, he could have been released at any time had Browder only paid his back taxes, then about $40 million. Mr. Magnitsky told Oleg Lurie, a journalist who was in prison at the time under a fraudulent charge that was later dismissed, that he thought his employers would get him out, but they had betrayed him. Lurie gave a sworn deposition to U.S. Federal Court.
Can you provide the recordings where he was offered money to change his story?
MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 19th November, 2018) The version about the poisoning of lawyer Sergey Magnitsky in the interests of the Hermitage Capital founder William Browder is confirmed by the testimony of journalist Oleg Lurie, who was kept with him in a pre-trial detention center, Russian Prosecutor General's Office spokesman Alexander Kurennoy said at a briefing on Monday.
"The credibility of the version about the poisoning of Sergey Magnitsky in the interests of Browder is also confirmed by the testimony of journalist Oleg Lurie, who was kept with Magnitsky in one detention center and communicated with him shortly before his death," Kurennoy said.
ok, so to be clear - Oleg didn't say Browder poisoned Magnitsky - it was only confirmed by his testimony that this may have happened?
jamie said:
Do you really fully believe Lurie in this context:
Browder values money far more than human life. During the year Mr. Magitsky was in pre-trial detention, he could have been released at any time had Browder only paid his back taxes, then about $40 million. Mr. Magnitsky told Oleg Lurie, a journalist who was in prison at the time under a fraudulent charge that was later dismissed, that he thought his employers would get him out, but they had betrayed him. Lurie gave a sworn deposition to U.S. Federal Court.Can you provide the recordings where he was offered money to change his story?
Where did you get this quote from? I don't know Lurie, but the fact that he said this under oath carries weight. Look at how Browder talks until he is under oath--big difference. I don't have the tapes (they would be in Russian anyway). He played them for the court, while under oath. The testimony did not provide a transcript of that. But, again, the under oath part is important.
This was from the letter from Lucy to Trump - warning him about Browder. The Oleg testimony is very suspect IMO.
Here's some info from his testimony:
Q. Approximately how long was your conversation with Magnitsky on or around August 9, 2009?
A. I cannot tell you exactly, but maybe 10 to 20 minutes.
He was in quite happy mood. He was anticipating freedom. And he was almost certain that within a day or two he would be released, three, five, maybe ten days, he will be out.
They met for the second and last time 10 days later - I didn't see Oleg mention how long the second meeting was - but this was his description:
he was in a terrible psychological condition and he said that his psychological condition affected his physical condition. I honestly took a pity of him, because I saw his condition and it was terrible.
So - Sergei went from positive happy to terrible in 10 days. He went from - "my employers are going to let me out" - to "you were right Oleg, I was deceived". And all this 100% on hearsay from Oleg.
jamie said:
This was from the letter from Lucy to Trump - warning him about Browder. The Oleg testimony is very suspect IMO.
So, that is Lucy's opinion, based on the evidence. Nothing wrong there. Why do you find the Oleg testimony suspect? What would be his motivation for lying? He is a journalist, not in Browder's business world.
nan said:
jamie said:So, that is Lucy's opinion, based on the evidence. Nothing wrong there. Why do you find the Oleg testimony suspect? What would be his motivation for lying? He is a journalist, not in Browder's business world.
This was from the letter from Lucy to Trump - warning him about Browder. The Oleg testimony is very suspect IMO.
It's a very amateurish opinion. Lucy and Andrei put so much weight behind Oleg's testimony - it's pretty shocking actually.
Why Oleg was deceptive - I'm not sure. But his testimony about Sergei's state of mind on August 19th seems pretty unbelievable when you see Sergei's correspondences at this time.
jamie said:
nan said:It's a very amateurish opinion. Lucy and Andrei put so much weight behind Oleg's testimony - it's pretty shocking actually.
7
jamie said:So, that is Lucy's opinion, based on the evidence. Nothing wrong there. Why do you find the Oleg testimony suspect? What would be his motivation for lying? He is a journalist, not in Browder's business world.
This was from the letter from Lucy to Trump - warning him about Browder. The Oleg testimony is very suspect IMO.
Why Oleg was deceptive - I'm not sure. But his testimony about Sergei's state of mind on August 19th seems pretty unbelievable when you see Sergei's correspondences at this time.
Using court testimony given under oath is considered strong evidence. Amateur is what you offer, since it sounds like you did not read Lurie's testimony. He also said Magnitsky was told by his employers to write that correspondence and told what to say.
nan said:
jamie said:Using court testimony given under oath is considered strong evidence. Amateur is what you offer, since it sounds like you did not read Lurie's testimony. He also said Magnitsky was told by his employers to write that correspondence and told what to say.
It's a very amateurish opinion. Lucy and Andrei put so much weight behind Oleg's testimony - it's pretty shocking actually.
Why Oleg was deceptive - I'm not sure. But his testimony about Sergei's state of mind on August 19th seems pretty unbelievable when you see Sergei's correspondences at this time.
Jamie: What were the correspondences you’re referring to, and what was in them that makes you think they contradict Lurie’s description of Magnitsky’s state of mind?
Nan: I saw in Lurie’s sworn deposition (for the record, it wasn’t court testimony) where he said Magnitsky complained of being pressured to sign a document he didn’t want to sign. Where in Lurie’s deposition did he say Magnitsky was told to write “that correspondence” that Jamie is referring to?
I don't have much time today, I'll just say that Lurie's testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing Sergei told Oleg can be corroborated.
One thing is certain - had Sergei stayed in the one prison, he would have had access to proper treatment and would likely be alive today.
jamie said:Why Oleg was deceptive - I'm not sure. But his testimony about Sergei's state of mind on August 19th seems pretty unbelievable when you see Sergei's correspondences at this time.
It's a very amateurish opinion. Lucy and Andrei put so much weight behind Oleg's testimony - it's pretty shocking actually.
Adapted from Anton Checkhov's Uncle Vladi (modernized as Lucy and Andrei and Oleg and Spike).
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Jamie: What were the correspondences you’re referring to, and what was in them that makes you think they contradict Lurie’s description of Magnitsky’s state of mind?
jamie said:Using court testimony given under oath is considered strong evidence. Amateur is what you offer, since it sounds like you did not read Lurie's testimony. He also said Magnitsky was told by his employers to write that correspondence and told what to say.
It's a very amateurish opinion. Lucy and Andrei put so much weight behind Oleg's testimony - it's pretty shocking actually.
Why Oleg was deceptive - I'm not sure. But his testimony about Sergei's state of mind on August 19th seems pretty unbelievable when you see Sergei's correspondences at this time.
Nan: I saw in Lurie’s sworn deposition (for the record, it wasn’t court testimony) where he said Magnitsky complained of being pressured to sign a document he didn’t want to sign. Where in Lurie’s deposition did he say Magnitsky was told to write “that correspondence” that Jamie is referring to?
Here is the link to Lurie's sworn deposition: https://100r.org/media/2017/10/Oleg-Lurie-deposition.pdf
End of Page 17 - Page 18:
Page 17Page 18
14 Q. Tell us everything he said to you and
15 you said to him that you can recall in that
16 conversation.
17 A. Yes, of course. Although more than
18 six years passed since that time, I will tell
19 you that Magnitsky asked me for advice, what to
20 do in his situation.
21 He approached me with a request. He
22 said that he already had people in the --
23 taking -- having higher-up positions both in
24 Russia and abroad who want him to be silent or
25 keep silence about their actions and they will
1 Lurie - Confidential
2 take him out of the prison within days.
3 His problem was as follows: His
4 attorneys, upon the request of the higher-ups
5 helping him, asked him to write a great number
6 of complaints for various reasons, both minor
7 and various large-scale, global problems. He
8 did not understood -- he did not understand why
9 he had to do that, but he followed their
10 request.
11 And Sergei Magnitsky was concerned --
12 and that was the reason why he approached me --
13 that his complaints will lead to problems for
14 other inmates both in the cells where he was
15 held and in other cells. He said that he didn't
16 want troubles for other inmates because as a
17 result of his complaints, searches in cells were
18 conducted, the conditions for various inmates
19 were changed.
20 So my suggestion was to make those
21 complaints somewhat absurd, for example, to
22 measure cubic meters of air in cells and mention
23 it in his complaints so no verification of
24 complaints would follow.
This is what I assumed Jaime was referring to. If he has something else, he will post it. It seems fair to say that anything Magnistsky did during his imprisonment might be on orders of Browder or other employers (Jamison?). Can't assume free will.
jamie said:
I don't have much time today, I'll just say that Lurie's testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing Sergei told Oleg can be corroborated.
One thing is certain - had Sergei stayed in the one prison, he would have had access to proper treatment and would likely be alive today.
It was given under oath by an impartial witness. That's pretty good. The witness was also approached by Browder's representatives later and offered payment to change his story. That evidence was recorded on tape. Does not look good for Browder. Reading this, you can see why someone would use it as a basis for a murder allegation. Can't see that, but it does look like Browder tried to hang something on Magnitsky and then left him hung out to dry, later using him as a martyr to launch his "human rights" campaign.
jamie said:
and what would be his punishment if he lied?
There are penalties for lying. He refused bribes so that speaks to his character.
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
Yep. Good article here, too, explaining that and some other words.
https://observer.com/2017/03/kremlingate-russia-spy-game-disinformation/