Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nan said:
nohero said:Did you watch the movie?
nan said:No charges against U.S. over Ukraine, no matter how many times Oliver Stone pushes the deposed Russia-allied President's version of how the Ukrainians tossed him out. How about Putin sending in actual troops, shooting down an actual airliner, and actually occupying actual territory - is he still short of the "war crimes" line?
nohero said:Do you think the US will be charged with war crimes for their war of aggression in Ukraine? Cause that's what really happened. Watch the movie, Ukraine on Fire and learn why John McCain is not a hero as the MSM portrays him.
More of the same, so no need to repeat my long post.
Speaking of war crimes, when do you think Putin will be charged with war crimes for his war of aggression in Ukraine? Or does that not count?
No. Are you going to tell me that the movie isn't about the deposed President's claim that the United States was responsible for the Ukrainians giving him the heave-ho?
nohero said:
nan said:No. Are you going to tell me that the movie isn't about the deposed President's claim that the United States was responsible for the Ukrainians giving him the heave-ho?
nohero said:Did you watch the movie?
nan said:No charges against U.S. over Ukraine, no matter how many times Oliver Stone pushes the deposed Russia-allied President's version of how the Ukrainians tossed him out. How about Putin sending in actual troops, shooting down an actual airliner, and actually occupying actual territory - is he still short of the "war crimes" line?
nohero said:Do you think the US will be charged with war crimes for their war of aggression in Ukraine? Cause that's what really happened. Watch the movie, Ukraine on Fire and learn why John McCain is not a hero as the MSM portrays him.
More of the same, so no need to repeat my long post.
Speaking of war crimes, when do you think Putin will be charged with war crimes for his war of aggression in Ukraine? Or does that not count?
No, I'm going to tell you that you should watch the movie.
nan said:
nohero said:No, I'm going to tell you that you should watch the movie.
nan said:No. Are you going to tell me that the movie isn't about the deposed President's claim that the United States was responsible for the Ukrainians giving him the heave-ho?
Did you watch the movie?
So it is all about the deposed, Russia-favoring President's claim. If there's some legitimate reporting, I'd be happy to read it. But watching a video of the deposed President and Putin telling Oliver Stone their fables is not something that seems worth the time.
nohero said:
nan said:So it is all about the deposed, Russia-favoring President's claim. If there's some legitimate reporting, I'd be happy to read it. But watching a video of the deposed President and Putin telling Oliver Stone their fables is not something that seems worth the time.
nohero said:No, I'm going to tell you that you should watch the movie.
nan said:No. Are you going to tell me that the movie isn't about the deposed President's claim that the United States was responsible for the Ukrainians giving him the heave-ho?
Did you watch the movie?
Trump is not in the movie. It all happens before him. It's a good movie and provides information not available in the MSM. Here is the trailer again:
And, if you must have Trump involved, here is a Real News Network interview with the director and he brings up Trump and Russiagate: nan said:
nohero said:Trump is not in the movie. It all happens before him. It's a good movie and provides information not available in the MSM. Here is the trailer again:
So it is all about the deposed, Russia-favoring President's claim. If there's some legitimate reporting, I'd be happy to read it. But watching a video of the deposed President and Putin telling Oliver Stone their fables is not something that seems worth the time.And, if you must have Trump involved, here is a Real News Network interview with the director and he brings up Trump and Russiagate:
Trump is also not referred to in my post. Please read it again to assure yourself of that fact, and then perhaps you'll understand what I wrote this time.
nohero said:
nan said:Trump is also not referred to in my post. Please read it again to assure yourself of that fact, and then perhaps you'll understand what I wrote this time.
nohero said:Trump is not in the movie. It all happens before him. It's a good movie and provides information not available in the MSM. Here is the trailer again:
So it is all about the deposed, Russia-favoring President's claim. If there's some legitimate reporting, I'd be happy to read it. But watching a video of the deposed President and Putin telling Oliver Stone their fables is not something that seems worth the time.
And, if you must have Trump involved, here is a Real News Network interview with the director and he brings up Trump and Russiagate:
Ok, I got it, but it is not a fable. I suggest you watch the movie before condemning it. The evidence of US involvement is compelling. There is much video footage and a leaked phone call. There is also the history of Ukraine and how it is divided with the US supporting the right wing Nazi-like factions of western Ukraine. That's why we have photos of the Nazis hanging with John McCain. Do you think he was just visiting for pleasure?
They tell the fable based on the Nuland phone call, also? Of course they do.
What the "documentary" has is just the same old conspiracy stuff that lots of us have already read, with interviews from the deposed, Russia-favoring President (still not a reference to Trump) and the beloved Putin himself, wrapped in a shiny package with the imprimatur of Oliver Stone
nohero said:
They tell the fable based on the Nuland phone call, also? Of course they do.
What the "documentary" has is just the same old conspiracy stuff that lots of us have already read, with interviews from the deposed, Russia-favoring President (still not a reference to Trump) and the beloved Putin himself, wrapped in a shiny package with the imprimatur of Oliver Stone
Oh, was the Nuland phone call just some spy talk for "Let's have lunch!" Why are you such an expert on a movie you have not even seen? At least watch the friggin movie first.
nan said:
nohero said:Oh, was the Nuland phone call just some spy talk for "Let's have lunch!" Why are you such an expert on a movie you have not even seen? At least watch the friggin movie first.
They tell the fable based on the Nuland phone call, also? Of course they do.
What the "documentary" has is just the same old conspiracy stuff that lots of us have already read, with interviews from the deposed, Russia-favoring President (still not a reference to Trump) and the beloved Putin himself, wrapped in a shiny package with the imprimatur of Oliver Stone
As you can see, from your reference to "a leaked phone call" I knew it was the Nuland call, and you confirmed that. I don't have to be an expert on the movie, as you see I've read about the pro-Russia spin about Ukraine before, and seeing a slick version with Vlad and Viktor and Oliver.
nohero said:
nan said:As you can see, from your reference to "a leaked phone call" I knew it was the Nuland call, and you confirmed that. I don't have to be an expert on the movie, as you see I've read about the pro-Russia spin about Ukraine before, and seeing a slick version with Vlad and Viktor and Oliver.
nohero said:Oh, was the Nuland phone call just some spy talk for "Let's have lunch!" Why are you such an expert on a movie you have not even seen? At least watch the friggin movie first.
They tell the fable based on the Nuland phone call, also? Of course they do.
What the "documentary" has is just the same old conspiracy stuff that lots of us have already read, with interviews from the deposed, Russia-favoring President (still not a reference to Trump) and the beloved Putin himself, wrapped in a shiny package with the imprimatur of Oliver Stone
Yes, I'm sure the MSM has informed you well. No need to bother with another view or even bother to watch the movie you know all about.
Time to check up on Bill Browder, who has friends in very high places. Corrupt MEPs are threatening Cyprus with sanctions if they cooperate with Russia to check out his shell companies.
MEPs threaten sanctions over cooperation with Russia
https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/09/13/meps-threaten-sanctions-over-cooperation-with-russia/
MEPs threatening sanctions: 4
Members of the European Parliament: 751
DaveSchmidt said:
MEPs threatening sanctions: 4
Members of the European Parliament: 751
Ok, then, let's see what Cyprus does.
Also referred to in that article: 87 other corrupt Europeans in high places.
The committee of legal affairs and human rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously adopted a resolution on Monday criticising Cyprus for being reluctant to go after Russian organised crime and instead siding with Russia against Hermitage Capital founder Bill Browder.
https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/09/11/coe-cyprus-branded-reluctant-in-probing-russian-organised-crime/
DaveSchmidt said:
Also referred to in that article: 87 other corrupt Europeans in high places.
The committee of legal affairs and human rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously adopted a resolution on Monday criticising Cyprus for being reluctant to go after Russian organised crime and instead siding with Russia against Hermitage Capital founder Bill Browder.
https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/09/11/coe-cyprus-branded-reluctant-in-probing-russian-organised-crime/
Bill Browder is part of Russian organized crime. Anyway, I found some more details on what is going on in Cyprus. This guy is a hard core Libertarian, but he's been following the Browder story and can explain the political impact. Basically, this could be the end of Bill Browder's story, because it looks like Cyprus is going to let the investigation go ahead, despite being threatened with Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty (human rights violation). According to Luongo, threatening with Article 7 is a serious violation of international law. It also makes Browder look bad that he refuses to have his books examined since he is supposedly innocent.
Stakes Rise in Browder-Gate – EU Threatens Cyprus with Article 7
https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/15/stakes-rise-browder-gate-eu-threaten-cyprus-article-7/
(podcast and text are the same--listen or read)
excerpt:
The Magnitsky Act has weaponized virtue-signaling and, in my mind it was intentionally done to open up another path to protect the most vile and venal people in the world to arrogate power to themselves without consequence.
Today we stand on the brink of an open hot war between the U.S. and Russia because of the lies which have been stacked on top of each other in service of this monstrous piece of legislation.
With each day it and its follow-up, last year’s Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), are used as immense hammers to bring untold misery to millions around the world.
People like Browder are nothing by petty thieves. It is obvious to me he started out as a willing pawn because he was young, hungry and vaguely psychopathic. The deeper he got in it the more erratic his behavior became.
Browder is being protected by powerful people in the U.S. and EU not because he’s so important but because exposing him exposes them.
This is why another country is being threatened with the stripping of what few rights sovereign nations have within the EU, Cyprus, over his books.
nan said:
It also makes Browder look bad that he refuses to have his books examined since he is supposedly innocent.
Neither that, nor this from the podcast ...
Because if Browder was as pure as the driven snow as he presents himself to the world then he would have no issue whatsoever in Cyprus opening up his books to Russia and put his question of guilt to rest once and for all.
... is how human or civil rights work. If they did, the police would have an open invitation to bust my door open. Why would a supposedly innocent citizen like me object?
But I’m pleased to say I can now put a bean on “Soros List” on my Conspiracy Bingo card.
nan said:
According to Luongo, threatening with Article 7 is a serious violation of international law.
I’m having trouble finding that part. He says it’s a violation of international law to threaten a nation with sanctions for violating international law?
Wow - again where do you get your news? Luongo is part of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
How Russia Targets the U.S. Military
With hacks, pro-Putin trolls and fake news, the Kremlin is ratcheting up its efforts to turn American servicemembers and veterans into a fifth column.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247
The expert also described the Strategic Culture Foundation as a part of the Kremlin’s influence apparatus and noted that Russia has long sought to amplify the voices of Western conspiracy theorists.
When you post something - can you post a little background on the author or who is funding the news source to give people a bit of a warning? I'm tired or researching your "experts".
They even have their own section in the Russian Insider:
https://russia-insider.com/en/strategic_culture_foundation
As mentioned here:
https://taskandpurpose.com/russian-propaganda-targeted-us-vets-service-members-via-social-media/
Other related sites to them are:
— Veteranstoday.com, which in late 2013 began publishing content from New Eastern Outlook, a geopolitical journal of the government-chartered Russian Academy of Sciences.
— Veteransnewsnow.com, a sister site that started posting information from the Moscow think tank Strategic Culture Foundation during the same time.
— Southfront.org, which was registered in Moscow in 2015 and soon partnered with Veterans Today.
This is a very good article also:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2015/08/14/the-kremlin-s-manichaean-delusion
It is this chorus of increasingly fringe elements that seems to be shaping the Kremlin's dystopian worldview, where the United States is a Manichaean evil whose sole purpose is to plot against Russia.
Moscow is eager to embrace seemingly any conspiracy nut, to endorse any laughable urban legend, so long as it's anti-Western, and especially anti-American
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Neither that, nor this from the podcast ...
It also makes Browder look bad that he refuses to have his books examined since he is supposedly innocent.
Because if Browder was as pure as the driven snow as he presents himself to the world then he would have no issue whatsoever in Cyprus opening up his books to Russia and put his question of guilt to rest once and for all.... is how human or civil rights work. If they did, the police would have an open invitation to bust my door open. Why would a supposedly innocent citizen like me object?
But I’m pleased to say I can now put a bean on “Soros List” on my Conspiracy Bingo card.
I know this is difficult concept for many people on this board, but Russia is a country that has the right to investigate criminals, and they are not being allowed to do that. The police can bust your door open if they have the proper paperwork. Russia has the proper paperwork for Browder, but people in the west are protecting him, based on a story that has no supporting evidence. In fact, discrepancies were shown during the Prevezon case deposition, although the Western media still gives him a free pass. Have to wonder why they protect him.
nan said:
I know this is difficult concept for many people on this board, but Russia is a country that has the right to investigate criminals, and they are not being allowed to do that.
This is not an international right, as far as I know. Then again, I wasn’t sure that it’s a violation of international law to threaten sanctions for violating international law, so what do I know?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:This is not an international right, as far as I know. Then again, I wasn’t sure that it’s a violation of international law to threaten sanctions for violating international law, so what do I know?
I know this is difficult concept for many people on this board, but Russia is a country that has the right to investigate criminals, and they are not being allowed to do that.
I'm trying to figure it all out as well since laws about Cypriot shell companies are not part of my normal occupation and I'm guessing that's true for you as well. Anyway, supposedly he is coming out with another article soon that goes into more detail. But in the mean time, I like this part:
Now this is a dangerous escalation in service of an investigation into someone who, agree or not, Russia has a legitimate interest in pursuing. Dismissing all of Russia’s concerns about Browder as ‘politically motivated’ is pure grandstanding. It carries no weight of law and stinks of a far deeper and more serious corruption.
jamie said:
Wow - again where do you get your news? Luongo is part of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
How Russia Targets the U.S. Military
With hacks, pro-Putin trolls and fake news, the Kremlin is ratcheting up its efforts to turn American servicemembers and veterans into a fifth column.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247
The expert also described the Strategic Culture Foundation as a part of the Kremlin’s influence apparatus and noted that Russia has long sought to amplify the voices of Western conspiracy theorists.When you post something - can you post a little background on the author or who is funding the news source to give people a bit of a warning? I'm tired or researching your "experts".
They even have their own section in the Russian Insider:
https://russia-insider.com/en/strategic_culture_foundation
As mentioned here:
https://taskandpurpose.com/russian-propaganda-targeted-us-vets-service-members-via-social-media/
Other related sites to them are:
— Veteranstoday.com, which in late 2013 began publishing content from New Eastern Outlook, a geopolitical journal of the government-chartered Russian Academy of Sciences.
— Veteransnewsnow.com, a sister site that started posting information from the Moscow think tank Strategic Culture Foundation during the same time.
— Southfront.org, which was registered in Moscow in 2015 and soon partnered with Veterans Today.
This is a very good article also:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2015/08/14/the-kremlin-s-manichaean-delusion
It is this chorus of increasingly fringe elements that seems to be shaping the Kremlin's dystopian worldview, where the United States is a Manichaean evil whose sole purpose is to plot against Russia.
Moscow is eager to embrace seemingly any conspiracy nut, to endorse any laughable urban legend, so long as it's anti-Western, and especially anti-American
When will you stop attacking my sources and read what they have to say? As I have explained a million times already, I can't get information on this from MSNBC or CNN because they, despite their being "reputable" news sources, accept Browder's phony baloney story without challenge. So, I have to go further afield to get good investigative journalism. I mentioned that the guy is a hard core Libertarian. He's clearly very against Cold War 2.0, which means you are not going to like him. Anyone that tries to get in the way of WWW3 or nuclear war seems to always end up on your bad list.
I've looked over his website and frankly I don't have a clue what he is up to, but he seems quirky and interesting. I've heard him interviewed and he has extremely strong opinions about stuff I don't know about and knows a lot about whatever it is he knows about. I doubt I agree with him on many things since he is a Libertarian and I have a negative view of that. However, as I am anti-war, I have had to expand my views to include the opinions of others who agree with me on that but not much else. He also shares my belief that Browder is a crook pretending to be a humanitarian.
So, forget about his other stuff and pay attention to what he knows about Browder's business dealings in Cyprus. Which is way more than the rest of us do.
ok, you're basically telling us to fall for the propaganda. Because the people supported by Russian networks are more trustworthy then the American networks.
It would just be refreshing if you had sources that weren't backed by Russians. And all you have to name for the MSM as unreliable are CNN and MSNBC. Do you know of any other American news sources? Are you only talking about tv stations? There are newspapers - like the New York Times which is pretty decent.
As far as international - I would go for the BBC over RT any day.
Oh, I checked out the Strategic Culture Foundation and they have a huge number of authors. Seems they all hate neocons so that's probably why they are getting smeared and accused of who knows what in that crazy neoMcCarthy hysteria article. Luongo wrote an piece on Syria for them and it's interesting because he has a unique intimidating style of writing and a brutally distanced way of viewing the world: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/09/11/us-choice-wwiii-or-saving-face-in-syria.html
Not your everyday op ed piece there, I'd say. Kinda edgy.
edited to add: That other piece you mentioned about how Russia supposedly views the US is just not accurate. At all.
jamie said:
ok, you're basically telling us to fall for the propaganda. Because the people supported by Russian networks are more trustworthy then the American networks.
It would just be refreshing if you had sources that weren't backed by Russians. And all you have to name for the MSM as unreliable are CNN and MSNBC. Do you know of any other American news sources? Are you only talking about tv stations? There are newspapers - like the New York Times which is pretty decent.
As far as international - I would go for the BBC over RT any day.
You fall for propaganda all the time and recently recommended a movie made by the CIA. I always tell you to be skeptical, but check out other views. I have shown you non-Russian sources--such as Lucy Komisar and Alex Krainer and others, but you don't like them either. There are no Western media sources that will denounce Bill Browder at this time. The New York Times almost always supports the status quo. People who know he is a fraud don't say it. Browder has very strong support (maybe from some banks or who knows), although the Prevezon deposition obviously did some harm. They make sure to put in a few negatives now in the glowing articles (cause they don't want to look like total idiots when it all comes out or because that's all the publication will let them say), while never challenging him. The BBC is not more reliable than US media. We are lucky to have RT as an alternative view. Hopefully, it does not get banned.
nan said:We are lucky to have RT as an alternative view. Hopefully, it does not get banned.
Russian propaganda = Alternative view. It is indeed alternative. Have you found any articles critical of Putin yet on RT or Sputnik news? Or is he doing to good of a job to critique?
Decent overview of RT:
RT’s stated mission is to offer an “alternative perspective on major global events”, but the world according to RT is often downright surreal. Fringe opinion takes centre stage. Reporting is routinely bolstered by testimony from experts you have never heard of, representing institutions you have never heard of.
(This thread will probably move to the Russia subforum soon)
jamie said:
nan said:We are lucky to have RT as an alternative view. Hopefully, it does not get banned.Russian propaganda = Alternative view. It is indeed alternative. Have you found any articles critical of Putin yet on RT or Sputnik news? Or is he doing to good of a job to critique?
Decent overview of RT:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today
RT’s stated mission is to offer an “alternative perspective on major global events”, but the world according to RT is often downright surreal. Fringe opinion takes centre stage. Reporting is routinely bolstered by testimony from experts you have never heard of, representing institutions you have never heard of.(This thread will probably move to the Russia subforum soon)
This thread is already in the Russian subforum. Is it moving to a sub-sub forum now? I think you would put it in a volcano if you could.
Anyway, the Guardian writer clearly lacks self-awareness as much of the criticism he has of RT could also be applied to much of Western media, including the Guardian. Also nitpicking and just making fun of a different culture. He probably wrote the article before he watched the channel. There are great shows on RT and he would have sounded more credible if the report were more balanced. All media outlets have positive and negative qualities and all have bias. That is why you should be skeptical and get your news from more than one source. You get a better perspective that way.
nan said:
When will you stop attacking my sources and read what they have to say?
Nowadays, we teach high school students about evaluating sources on the internet. They are taught not to just believe anything published online, but to consider the source that they are citing as well as the contents.
Careful attention to valid criticisms of online sources, their background, and their motives is basic Media Literacy nowadays.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread. With your logic - I assume that you get use Fox News as an alternate news source - as you would RT - would I be correct?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Did you watch the movie?