Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nan said:
ridski said:Who is the winner and who is the loser? The Magnitsky act was lobbied and paid for by Khordakovsky, who many think is maneuvering to overthrow Putin with support of the west. The people on the Magnistsky list are supposed to be violators of human rights--but I don't think there is any real attempt to verify that--and at least some of them were put there because Bill or someone else wanted them. So, based on current protocol, we can't say if they are benevolent or misunderstood or even deserving. You are assuming too much.
Once again, an example of history being written by the winners. The oligarchs not loyal to Putin were raping the country, while the poor pro-Putin oligarchs demonized by the Magnitsky Act are benevolent and misunderstood and should be free to do as they wish.
Here's what I assume. I assume there are no benevolent players in this game. No benevolent players at all. Is that too much?
ridski said:
nan said:Here's what I assume. I assume there are no benevolent players in this game. No benevolent players at all. Is that too much?
ridski said:Who is the winner and who is the loser? The Magnitsky act was lobbied and paid for by Khordakovsky, who many think is maneuvering to overthrow Putin with support of the west. The people on the Magnistsky list are supposed to be violators of human rights--but I don't think there is any real attempt to verify that--and at least some of them were put there because Bill or someone else wanted them. So, based on current protocol, we can't say if they are benevolent or misunderstood or even deserving. You are assuming too much.
Once again, an example of history being written by the winners. The oligarchs not loyal to Putin were raping the country, while the poor pro-Putin oligarchs demonized by the Magnitsky Act are benevolent and misunderstood and should be free to do as they wish.
Yes, I consider Andre Nekersov, Alex Krainer, and Lucy Komisar benevolent players. They all came to this story as observers, not participants. Oleg Lurie, also is probably a benevolent player, but I don't know much about him. Basically, the journalists who expose this scam are off the hook. The journalists in the mainstream media who give him a free pass, not so much. Some of them know he is lying and they play along. MSNBC killed a story on his fraud just after the Trump Tower meeting, so that does not look good. There is no excuse at this point for any journalist to interview him or write a story about him without asking some challenging questions--the latest in Vanity Fair makes that supposed investigative journalist look like an idiot. She should be embarrassed.
Browder and is colleagues are probably worse than even what I think they are. I don't know if the full story will come out in my lifetime, but I think he will be found to be deeply corrupt, possibly with help from the intelligence community (cause how else could he pass such a whopper for so long)? I base that on the fake evidence he presents and all the huge gaps between his story and his deposition. He has been doing this for so long and yet, where is the evidence?
I guess you feel that Putin has some responsibility here and I don't know about that. Andre Nekersov is a huge Putin critic and he does blame Putin in any way. Krainer makes a good case for Putin's evil reputation exaggerated to feed Cold War 2.0, exacerbating a dangerous situation. The prison conditions in Russia, as almost everywhere, look to be a problem, but that is not enough to justify the sanctions. There was an investigation after the death and several people were fired. So, it's not as though nothing was done.
So, no, I don't see everyone as guilty or with malevolent intent.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
ridski said:
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Agreed. Two other points.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
nohero said:
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
Low blow.
Getting back to Bill Browder, he was recently listed as a British agent on Integrity Initiative documents. I posted on this before when the files were released by Anonymous but there was conflicting info on that at the time. More has come out but this is a still developing story and I will post more on this soon. In the meantime, here is a blog post giving an overview and some useful links.
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/integrity-grasping-the-initiative/
nan said:
You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
Low blow.
Come on, nan. A few regulars object to your suspension, and all you see is an attack. As for understanding opposing POVs, try articulating one in a way that gets someone who holds it to say you reflected it accurately. Until you can do that, it’s hot air.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Come on, nan. A few regulars object to your suspension, and all you see is an attack. As for understanding opposing POVs, try articulating one in a way that gets someone who holds it to say you reflected it accurately. Until you can do that, it’s hot air.
You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
Low blow.
First of all, it was ONE person, not a few regulars. I did not say anything about the other people that made nasty remarks--I just let it go. Second of all he advocated ignoring me because I don't "understand" which is just so full of crap. That may be his perception, but I'm letting him know I disagree. I don't tell you how to respond to attacks and I don't see how you think it is appropriate to tell me what to do. Is that what they mean by "mansplaining?"
Ridski and I objected, and nohero agreed with ridski. Splain it as you wish, but I counted three.
DaveSchmidt said:
Ridski and I objected, and nohero agreed with ridski. Splain it as you wish, but I counted three.
Objected to what? Are we reading the same thread here? I saw some comments after I was banned, none in support of free speech (since I was banned for expressing my opinion, while others were allowed personal attacks). The only one I responded to was nohero, since he made a bold post about the importance of ignoring me (as opposed to discussing with me using ideas and evidence) because I don't "understand." I wanted to clear up the confusion on that, in case anyone missed that the word understand=don't agree and that he was advocating shutting someone out out the conversation. Does not look good for him.
That is the only thing I am responding to here. I am here to discuss topics, not get back at all the people I don't like. Had any of you been banned for doing what I did, I would have spoken up for you, since, although I disagree with your views, I feel you should be able to state your opinions and participate in discussions. But, since you all won't even stick up for Julian Assange, I can't expect you to spend 2 seconds on little old me. I'm just moving on, and I want to go into detail about the Integrity Initiative, because it is important and not going to get much play on mainstream news and it relates to Bill Browder (who was listed in the UK cluster of influencers). I like to talk about politics--sorry if that offends some people.
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:First of all, it was ONE person, not a few regulars. I did not say anything about the other people that made nasty remarks--I just let it go. Second of all he advocated ignoring me because I don't "understand" which is just so full of crap. That may be his perception, but I'm letting him know I disagree. I don't tell you how to respond to attacks and I don't see how you think it is appropriate to tell me what to do. Is that what they mean by "mansplaining?"
nan said:Come on, nan. A few regulars object to your suspension, and all you see is an attack. As for understanding opposing POVs, try articulating one in a way that gets someone who holds it to say you reflected it accurately. Until you can do that, it’s hot air.
You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
Low blow.
And that is what we can "nansplaining".
"So flattered. Russian Senator Kosachev met with Putin yesterday and suggested the Russian Federation Council come up with an official 'Browder List' of foreign politicians who have been most effective at sharing Russia's malicious intent abroad."
https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1077864434767409152?s=21
South_Mountaineer said:
"So flattered. Russian Senator Kosachev met with Putin yesterday and suggested the Russian Federation Council come up with an official 'Browder List' of foreign politicians who have been most effective at sharing Russia's malicious intent abroad."
https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1077864434767409152?s=21
Can you post that here since Bill Browder blocked me (although I have never posted on his feed) so I can't view.
In the meantime, here is another murder that Browder ascribed to Putin that did not happen. Browder suggested that he was murdered because he was a "whistleblower." Sound familiar? The New York Times, The Atlantic and Buzzfeed also reported falsely.
Yet another murder that wasn’t: The Perepilichny case and the anti-Russia campaign
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/24/pere-d24.html
The past few days have seen the unravelling of one of the many alleged “murders” that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been accused of by the media and the intelligence agencies: after an investigation into the November 2012 death of the multi-millionaire Alexander Perepilichny, the coroner found that he “more likely than not” died of natural causes.
This conclusion comes after years in which the media have treated his death as a “killing” and “murder,” ascribed to the Kremlin and even Putin himself, without any kind of factual substantiation.
As recently as August 8, 2018, the New York Times cited his death as one of several for whom Putin was probably responsible, falsely writing that “the police were left scratching their heads over the body… It was not until 2015 that a botanist was able to identify the presumptive cause of Perepilichny’s death: His stomach held traces of gelsemium, a rare, poisonous plant grown in the Himalayas and known to have been used in Chinese assassinations.”
In fact, the Surrey police at the time did not believe that his death was suspicious in any way, and concluded that he died of a heart attack. Perepilichny, a Russian nouveau riche who was involved in numerous money-laundering schemes in Russia before leaving the country in 2009 for the UK, died on November 10, 2012, after he had collapsed while jogging. Struggling with obesity (he peaked at around 238 lbs), Perepilichny reportedly worked out a lot shortly before his death and had lost some 40 lbs. Symptoms he exhibited on the day before he died also suggested that he had suffered food poisoning.
The first to raise any kind of suspicion was Bill Browder, the CEO of the Hermitage hedge fund, who contacted the police suggesting that Perepilichny was murdered because he had been a “whistleblower.” Browder told the inquest, “We believe there is a strong possibility that Alexander Perepilichny was murdered.”
Yet examinations into the initial finding of an “unknown compound” in Perepilichny’s body by experts at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew had already proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that there had been no plant toxin. According to Kew botanist Dr. Geoff Kite, it is not uncommon to find an “unknown compound” in a body, and that the one deemed suspicious was one of 300 found in Perepilichny. In other words, there was absolutely nothing to suggest that Perepilichny had been poisoned.
nan said:
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:Can you post that here since Bill Browder blocked me (although I have never posted on his feed) so I can't view.
"So flattered. Russian Senator Kosachev met with Putin yesterday and suggested the Russian Federation Council come up with an official 'Browder List' of foreign politicians who have been most effective at sharing Russia's malicious intent abroad."
https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1077864434767409152?s=21
Priceless. Bill Browder has had enough as well. Love it.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Come on, nan. A few regulars object to your suspension, and all you see is an attack. As for understanding opposing POVs, try articulating one in a way that gets someone who holds it to say you reflected it accurately. Until you can do that, it’s hot air.
You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
Low blow.
Not sure how this relates to attacking someone while they are banned.
sbenois said:
nan said:Priceless. Bill Browder has had enough as well. Love it.
South_Mountaineer said:Can you post that here since Bill Browder blocked me (although I have never posted on his feed) so I can't view.
"So flattered. Russian Senator Kosachev met with Putin yesterday and suggested the Russian Federation Council come up with an official 'Browder List' of foreign politicians who have been most effective at sharing Russia's malicious intent abroad."
https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1077864434767409152?s=21
Enough of what? As I said, I never posted on his Twitter feed. He is so afraid of a challenging remark that he bans people he thinks might comment.
paulsurovell said:
Not sure how this relates to attacking someone while they are banned.
OK. You're not sure.
sbenois said:
I told him all about you. You're welcome.
If that were true it would make him look even worse.
Lucy Komisar posts another critique of a Washington Post article, related to the Trump Tower meeting.
WashPost is wrong again on Browder
https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/12/washpost-is-wrong-again-on-browder/
nan said:
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
Sorry to revisit this, but -
As others noted, I didn't attack (which is what others could see).
I agreed with Mr. Ridski's objection to your "time out". He added, "just pretend it doesn't exist".
I followed up with a general point - "we all have the option of just not responding". That applies to anybody's post. It wasn't specific to you.
I am, however, extremely disappointed with Mr. Surovell.
paulsurovell said:
nan said:Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
I'm not persuaded that you actually interpreted my comment as an attack. If you did, you're showing some seriously deficient reading comprehension ability.
And you followed up with a personal attack. Here's my comment to Jamie on that: "I'm not suggesting a 'time out', but please keep a tally of everyone's experience with his attacks."
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Amazing Housecleaning available call! (201) 889-5521
Apr 18, 2024 at 12:40pm
-
Apr 18, 2024 at 11:17am
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 6:35pm
-
Administrative Assistant/REMOTE-Part Time
Apr 17, 2024 at 1:19pm
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 12:14pm
-
Apr 16, 2024 at 10:59am
-
Nanny available beginning mid June!
Apr 15, 2024 at 10:21pm
-
Full Spectrum Doula | CPR Instructor
Apr 15, 2024 at 5:11pm
Help Wanted
-
MF519 PT Nanny for 1 (ASAP Start)
Apr 18, 2024 at 5:23pm
-
WF743 Part Time Nanny/Family Assistant for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 16, 2024 at 8:17am
Lessons/Instruction
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Who is the winner and who is the loser? The Magnitsky act was lobbied and paid for by Khordakovsky, who many think is maneuvering to overthrow Putin with support of the west. The people on the Magnistsky list are supposed to be violators of human rights--but I don't think there is any real attempt to verify that--and at least some of them were put there because Bill or someone else wanted them. So, based on current protocol, we can't say if they are benevolent or misunderstood or even deserving. You are assuming too much.