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

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
17 posts and not one person has bothered to comment on the topic.  DaveSchmidt, are you just too lazy to open your own thread?  Do you think I run a thread opening business?  Kinda rude to just assume that your piece relates and to take over my thread.  

No.
And no.
And when I open threads, I welcome all comers and cede any control over what direction they take.

 I like thread drift after awhile, because it's like a natural conversation. But, I had just opened the thread and it never got off the ground.  You said it reminded you of something, but you never even paid attention to what "it" was.  I don't want to rub your face in it--its probably something I might do as well sometime--I was just disappointed.  

More on Browder from Fault Lines Radio who has been covering this story for months.  Fault Lines is a daily discussion between a Republican (Lee Stranahan) and an Independent (former Democrat) Progressive, Garland Nixon.  I recommend it for those that are open to hearing other views.  They get in to some good arguments. The discussion on Browder begins at 6 mins 11 secs.  Also Stranahan mistakenly says Livingston for Levenson. 

I'd encourage everyone to track down the Preet Bharara where he interviews Browder. It's pretty compelling stuff. I think it's legit. 

Soul_29 said:
I'd encourage everyone to track down the Preet Bharara where he interviews Browder. It's pretty compelling stuff. I think it's legit. 

 Ok, then post it here.  We can compare. 

Here you go, if this link works:

Here is my original video reposted for watching afterwards for comparison:

aren't there transcripts or articles some place where I can get this story without having to watch a video? 

nan said:
Here is my original video reposted for watching afterwards for comparison:

 you posted this as a joke - right?  I mean this isn't your "Go to" source for information - is it?  Can you tell us one of the most revealing lines from this hour and a hlaf video?  Or do you want everyone to waste their time?

ml1 said:
aren't there transcripts or articles some place where I can get this story without having to watch a video? 

 Here is an article about the film being show in the US with an interview with the film director--and it gives some background to the story too.  

Millionaire Tries to Stop Documentary Claiming to Tell the True Story of Russia’s Missing $230 Million

A new documentary about Sergei Magnitsky brings the drama of big money versus free speech to Washington.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/10/millionaire-tries-to-shut-down-screening-of-documentary-claiming-to-tell-the-true-story-of-russias-missing-230-million-putin-sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder/

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
17 posts and not one person has bothered to comment on the topic.  DaveSchmidt, are you just too lazy to open your own thread?  Do you think I run a thread opening business?  Kinda rude to just assume that your piece relates and to take over my thread.  

No.
And no.
And when I open threads, I welcome all comers and cede any control over what direction they take.

 That's because you're not an authoritarian.

nan,

The reason the thread didn't take off, IMHO, is that you required us to watch a 90 minute video.

Summarize the video for us. Do your due diligence as the thread starter.  

Facebook. Not even once. 

drummerboy said:
nan,
The reason the thread didn't take off, IMHO, is that you required us to watch a 90 minute video.
Summarize the video for us. Do your due diligence as the thread starter.  

 I did summarize it.  I did assume you all knew something about Bill Browder and the Magnitzgy act.  Also, I made it clear that you did not have to watch the whole 90 minutes and that they gave lots of information at the beginning. But, anyway, I'm listening to the NPR Browder inteview now and this is an amazing story like a British spy novel--on both sides.  A good break from the corrupt DNC which is our usual conversation.  Don't miss it.

Soul_29 said:
I'd encourage everyone to track down the Preet Bharara where he interviews Browder. It's pretty compelling stuff. I think it's legit. 

 I agree, I listened to it.  That's a good recommendation.  Better than the recommendation of commentary from the guys from "Sputnik News" (from guess where), which Ms. Nan suggested.

nan said:

nohero said:
I commented twice on the topic.

nan said:
17 posts and not one person has bothered to comment on the topic.  DaveSchmidt, are you just too lazy to open your own thread?  Do you think I run a thread opening business?  Kinda rude to just assume that your piece relates and to take over my thread.  
Anyway, this thread was opened to discuss Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. It's not a conspiracy which some have assumed without even listening to the video. Please don't assume you know the details and then launch into a nasty response or personal attack or based on your own assumptions.  
The link for the video is in the first post on the thread.  

 

 No, you did not.  You said something irrelevant about it being related to hating Hillary and that you were sure Russia was in the wrong.  You clearly did not listen to the video and just made up what it was about. 

 I disagree, it was completely relevant.  If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.

I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

nohero said:

Soul_29 said:
I'd encourage everyone to track down the Preet Bharara where he interviews Browder. It's pretty compelling stuff. I think it's legit. 

 I agree, I listened to it.  That's a good recommendation.  Better than the recommendation of commentary from the guys from "Sputnik News" (from guess where), which Ms. Nan suggested.

 Sputnik radio gives their reporters more freedom than MSNBC.  Ed Schultz, before he died, testified to that all the time.  Garland NIxon, who is an American, also works for other outlets.  It is wrong to discount this story because of Sputnik.  However, there are other options.  For one there is a book that is now listed on Amazon, but I don't know for how long since it was previously censored:

Grand Deception: The Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692131957/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

Here you can read about how Amazon censored the book here:

https://thesaker.is/how-my-book-unmasking-bill-browder-was-censored-by-amazon-by-alex-krainer/

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
I commented twice on the topic.

nan said:
17 posts and not one person has bothered to comment on the topic.  DaveSchmidt, are you just too lazy to open your own thread?  Do you think I run a thread opening business?  Kinda rude to just assume that your piece relates and to take over my thread.  
Anyway, this thread was opened to discuss Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. It's not a conspiracy which some have assumed without even listening to the video. Please don't assume you know the details and then launch into a nasty response or personal attack or based on your own assumptions.  
The link for the video is in the first post on the thread.  

 

 No, you did not.  You said something irrelevant about it being related to hating Hillary and that you were sure Russia was in the wrong.  You clearly did not listen to the video and just made up what it was about. 

 I disagree, it was completely relevant.  If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 OK, so you did not watch my video before declaring it crap, right?  Just checking.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
I commented twice on the topic.

nan said:
17 posts and not one person has bothered to comment on the topic.  DaveSchmidt, are you just too lazy to open your own thread?  Do you think I run a thread opening business?  Kinda rude to just assume that your piece relates and to take over my thread.  
Anyway, this thread was opened to discuss Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. It's not a conspiracy which some have assumed without even listening to the video. Please don't assume you know the details and then launch into a nasty response or personal attack or based on your own assumptions.  
The link for the video is in the first post on the thread.  

 

 No, you did not.  You said something irrelevant about it being related to hating Hillary and that you were sure Russia was in the wrong.  You clearly did not listen to the video and just made up what it was about. 

 I disagree, it was completely relevant.  If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 As I repeatedly said, you only have to watch about 30 minutes of my video, not 90.  I spent time listening to the NPR Browder interview.  Cause I like to hear both sides and this is an incredible story no matter what side you are on.  

Here is an article from The Nation on the difficulty of getting the film screened in the US and some about the story.  This film was made by an anti-Putin filmaker: 

https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment

I saw 20 minutes of the video or so.  Was Garland in the Trump tower meeting?  Because he certainly had all of the details - what they were promised - what was delivered , etc.  Or was his rant 100% speculation?  Bizarre video - especially if you're trying to get people onboard to your point of view.  Fortunately, the video only has 1,407 views - so I'm glad to know it's not going viral.

nan said:

nohero said:
If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 As I repeatedly said, you only have to watch about 30 minutes of my video, not 90.  I spent time listening to the NPR Browder interview.  Cause I like to hear both sides and this is an incredible story no matter what side you are on.  
Here is an article from The Nation on the difficulty of getting the film screened in the US and some about the story.  This film was made by an anti-Putin filmaker: 
https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment

 Interesting that you didn't provide a response to the substance of my post, just said "Watch this part of the video".

jamie said:
I saw 20 minutes of the video or so.  Was Garland in the Trump tower meeting?  Because he certainly had all of the details - what they were promised - what was delivered , etc.  Or was his rant 100% speculation?  Bizarre video - especially if you're trying to get people onboard to your point of view.  Fortunately, the video only has 1,407 views - so I'm glad to know it's not going viral.

 Please explain what you find bizarre about this video because I don't see that.  It's also not a rant. Garland directly interviewed Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting.  So that's why he has details on that.  She said she was there to talk about Bill Browder being a liar and getting rid of the Magnitsky Act. The agent that had set up the meeting had falsely represented it as providing dirt on Hillary so Trump would attend.  

 The first 17 minutes of the video goes over the history of Russia since the time it changed over from the Soviet state to a market-based economy and how Browder was over there helping to loot the country as a vulture capitalist.  Browder was setting up shell companies to hide his money and Magnitsky was an accountant that worked for him and helped him do that.  They both got caught, but only Magnitsky went to jail as Browder was out of the country.  He's been making up this story ever since to save his hide, sometimes physically running down the street to avoid a subpoena. He does much better in sympathetic NPR interviews than under cross-examination.

Yes, the video has low viewership because it's on Jamarl Thomas' site and he is not a popular commentator.  But, Garland Nixon has talked about this a lot on his other radio shows and they have a larger audience.  It should go viral because there is lots to doubt about Browder's story unless you have already made up your mind.

I found some other sources to back up what Garland is saying about Browder being served and running away  in a 2015 New Republic article.

Fighting Putin Doesn’t Make You a Saint

Hedge fund star Bill Browder has been a strident anti-Putin voice. But why won't he testify about Russian wrongdoing?

https://newrepublic.com/article/126760/fighting-putin-doesnt-make-saint

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 As I repeatedly said, you only have to watch about 30 minutes of my video, not 90.  I spent time listening to the NPR Browder interview.  Cause I like to hear both sides and this is an incredible story no matter what side you are on.  
Here is an article from The Nation on the difficulty of getting the film screened in the US and some about the story.  This film was made by an anti-Putin filmaker: 
https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment

 Interesting that you didn't provide a response to the substance of my post, just said "Watch this part of the video".

 What you call substance I call irrelevant to the topic. The Magnitsky Act has bipartisan sponsorship and Browder is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.  It does not matter who the investigative journalists voted for in 2016.  Also, had you watched 20 or so minutes of it, you would have heard Garland Nixon say that the meeting had nothing to do with Hillary.  

So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?  

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 As I repeatedly said, you only have to watch about 30 minutes of my video, not 90.  I spent time listening to the NPR Browder interview.  Cause I like to hear both sides and this is an incredible story no matter what side you are on.  
Here is an article from The Nation on the difficulty of getting the film screened in the US and some about the story.  This film was made by an anti-Putin filmaker: 
https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment

 Interesting that you didn't provide a response to the substance of my post, just said "Watch this part of the video".

 What you call substance I call irrelevant to the topic. The Magnitsky Act has bipartisan sponsorship and Browder is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.  It does not matter who the investigative journalists voted for in 2016.  Also, had you watched 20 or so minutes of it, you would have heard Garland Nixon say that the meeting had nothing to do with Hillary.  

 Your response doesn't address what I wrote, so you still haven't explained why you didn't provide a response to what I wrote.

jamie said:
So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?  

 I believe that she was after Browder and did not have dirt on Hillary Clinton.  What do you think?

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
If you created a Venn diagram of "So-called Progressives Who Said 'Don't Vote for Hillary' in the November 2016 Election" and "So-called Progressives With a Newfound Need to Attack the Magnitsky Act", it would be a circle or close to it.
I didn't take the hour-plus time to watch the video, because I've read, listened to, and watched enough to satisfy myself that Mr. Magnitsky was murdered to further the business interests of Putin and his buddies, and they deserve whatever hurt they are getting from the Magnitsky Act.

 As I repeatedly said, you only have to watch about 30 minutes of my video, not 90.  I spent time listening to the NPR Browder interview.  Cause I like to hear both sides and this is an incredible story no matter what side you are on.  
Here is an article from The Nation on the difficulty of getting the film screened in the US and some about the story.  This film was made by an anti-Putin filmaker: 
https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment

 Interesting that you didn't provide a response to the substance of my post, just said "Watch this part of the video".

 What you call substance I call irrelevant to the topic. The Magnitsky Act has bipartisan sponsorship and Browder is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.  It does not matter who the investigative journalists voted for in 2016.  Also, had you watched 20 or so minutes of it, you would have heard Garland Nixon say that the meeting had nothing to do with Hillary.  

 Your response doesn't address what I wrote, so you still haven't explained why you didn't provide a response to what I wrote.

Cause it's not relevant to the topic and, as I explained yesterday, I would like to discuss the topic for awhile before drifting off.  I think I spend plenty of time discussing people who don't vote for Clinton with you on other threads so can I please have a break here? 

nan said:

jamie said:
So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?  

 I believe that she was after Browder and did not have dirt on Hillary Clinton.  What do you think?

 I have no idea - I wasn't in the meeting.

Without me having to go through a 90 minute video to find the answer, can someone let me know what is so important about the Magnitsky Act that Russian government private interests would meet with Trump's campaign (exclusively - not Clinton's) to ask for a quid-pro-quo repeal of the Magnitsky Act in return for help to beat Clinton in the election the ability to adopt Russian children?

If the Russians had no vested interest in the outcome of the election, would they not have sent Veselnitskaya to both campaigns?

ridski said:
Without me having to go through a 90 minute video to find the answer, can someone let me know what is so important about the Magnitsky Act that Russian government private interests would meet with Trump's campaign (exclusively - not Clinton's) to ask for a quid-pro-quo repeal of the Magnitsky Act in return for help to beat Clinton in the election the ability to adopt Russian children?
If the Russians had no vested interest in the outcome of the election, would they not have sent Veselnitskaya to both campaigns?

 Again, you only have to watch 30 minutes (but continue saying 90 to be obnoxious).  If you do watch 30 MINUTES of the video, you will hear about the history of American capitalists looting Russia and causing millions of people to suffer and die.  Browder was one of those, made massive amounts of money, and now his story has reignited the Cold War.  Much of what people think about the horrors of Putin and Russia can be traced to Browder claims and what he has written in his best selling book.  It has also prevented people from coming here that need to come here to deal with financial issues.  It has increased tensions between two nuclear countries--a very serious offence.  I'm sure the Russian government does not want him running around getting away with this. And he's not even an American citizen.  Why should he have the power to set US policy?  

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:
So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?  

 I believe that she was after Browder and did not have dirt on Hillary Clinton.  What do you think?

 I have no idea - I wasn't in the meeting.

 Her name is mentioned in that 2015 New Republic article I linked and she is said to be a lawyer in the case Garland is referring to.  So, I think that gives some support to her story:

"Katsyv’s lawyers say the government has acknowledged that Browder was the main source of its allegations and is now avoiding a hostile cross-examination that would test the veracity of his allegations. “In any media space where Browder has promulgated his story, there is no one who would ask the kind of concrete, pointed questions he would need to answer without contradicting his previous statements,” Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer representing Katsyv, told me. “How can a person who does not pay taxes [in the U.S.] have this kind of influence?”"