Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nohero said:
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?
You never believe the US does anything wrong no matter how many times it has been documented.
America’s Dark History of Supporting Ukrainian Fascists and War Criminals
A history that continues to this day. Did you at least watch the Ukraine on Fire movie?
nohero said:
nan said: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.
When will you stop attacking my sources and read what they have to say?
Careful attention to valid criticisms of online sources, their background, and their motives is basic Media Literacy nowadays.
I hope they are not taught that CNN or MSNBC are reliable sources. I hope they are taught to be skeptical of everything and read widely including in non-Western media. Cause otherwise, they are being fed propaganda.
nohero said:
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
Tulsi said let Assad bomb ISIS-you know the people we are supposed to be bombing, not arming them instead, as we do. Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
nohero said:
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
Tulsi said that Congress must condemn Trump for protecting Al Qaeda and he did it on 9/11. You are twisting Tulsi's words so you can pretend you don't support Trump on this.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Tulsi said that Congress must condemn Trump for protecting Al Qaeda and he did it on 9/11. You are twisting Tulsi's words so you can pretend you don't support Trump on this.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
I'm flattered that you include me in the company of Bob Woodward, among the people whose statements you find necessary to distort.
Tell me how many people in Syria were part of the plotting for the 9/11 attacks? What is your view of invoking 9/11 for any and all indiscriminate attacks in the name of "fighting terrorism"?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I'm flattered that you include me in the company of Bob Woodward, among the people whose statements you find necessary to distort.
nohero said:Tulsi said that Congress must condemn Trump for protecting Al Qaeda and he did it on 9/11. You are twisting Tulsi's words so you can pretend you don't support Trump on this.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
Tell me how many people in Syria were part of the plotting for the 9/11 attacks? What is your view of invoking 9/11 for any and all indiscriminate attacks in the name of "fighting terrorism"?
Tulsi pointed out that Trump's policy to protect Al-Qaeda was promoted on 9/11, the anniversary of Al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks in the United States.
nan said:
nohero said:Tulsi said let Assad bomb ISIS-you know the people we are supposed to be bombing, not arming them instead, as we do. Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
Are you saying there are people we are supposed to be bombing, now?
nan said:
Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
Yes, because I was living here during 9/11 I don't like it when the attack is used to support any old "it's okay to bomb those Arabs" argument. ISIS wasn't around on 9/11/2001. They formed after George W. Bush used 9/11 as some excuse to bomb some Arabs and invade Iraq.
ridski said:
nan said:Are you saying there are people we are supposed to be bombing, now?
nohero said:Tulsi said let Assad bomb ISIS-you know the people we are supposed to be bombing, not arming them instead, as we do. Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
Ok, I'm not clear. I'm thinking of the US policy goal since 9/11. We are told we are commited to pursuing the terrorists. Now, it seems, we have been instead arming them and planning on protecting them from another group that wants to get them out.
nan said:
ridski said:Ok, I'm not clear. I'm thinking of the US policy goal since 9/11. We are told we are commited to pursuing the terrorists. Now, it seems, we have been instead arming them and planning on protecting them from another group that wants to get them out.
nan said:Are you saying there are people we are supposed to be bombing, now?
nohero said:Tulsi said let Assad bomb ISIS-you know the people we are supposed to be bombing, not arming them instead, as we do. Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
So should we leave Syria and let the Syrian government bomb people, or not?
ridski said:
nan said:So should we leave Syria and let the Syrian government bomb people, or not?
ridski said:Ok, I'm not clear. I'm thinking of the US policy goal since 9/11. We are told we are commited to pursuing the terrorists. Now, it seems, we have been instead arming them and planning on protecting them from another group that wants to get them out.
nan said:Are you saying there are people we are supposed to be bombing, now?
nohero said:Tulsi said let Assad bomb ISIS-you know the people we are supposed to be bombing, not arming them instead, as we do. Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
jamie said:You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.
ah yes - it is in the subforum already - might be thinking of another thread.
We should leave Syria and let them do what they want to do with THEIR country. We should stop letting the CIA arm terrorists in other countries to effect regime change. It is none of our business, wastes money we need here, and makes the world less stable and more dangerous.
nohero said:
nan said:Yes, because I was living here during 9/11 I don't like it when the attack is used to support any old "it's okay to bomb those Arabs" argument. ISIS wasn't around on 9/11/2001. They formed after George W. Bush used 9/11 as some excuse to bomb some Arabs and invade Iraq.
Why do you support ISIS? We were all living here during 9/11.
They are not bombing "those Arabs." They are bombing the terrorists our country funded to try to effect yet another regime change. Like they always do. Even Jeffrey Sachs admits it now so no tinfoil hat needed.
Ok, I want to get back on track to Bill Browder. There are some new articles on him. First, I will post a new, more in depth, article by Tom Lugano, on the EU Article 7 invocation and how it is screwing the Danske bank:
Bill Browder Strikes Back in Europe
https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/17/bill-browder-strikes-back-europe/
excerpt:
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive ramifications for the global financial system unless he’s intimately connected with the very people that operate the top of that system?
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?
It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.
Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being ‘friends of Vladimir’ it’s obvious that the target isn’t Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in Rostov-on-Don.
Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through the Moscow phone book.
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
The more Browder gets defended by people punching far above his weight, the more obvious it is that there is something wrong with his story. Undermining the reputation of the biggest bank in Denmark is a ‘playing-for-keeps’ moment.
But, it’s one that can and will have serious repercussions over time.
It undermines the validity of government institutions, exposing corruption that proves we live in a world ruled by men, not laws. That the U.S. and EU are fundamentally no different in their leadership than banana republics.
You can read the article and/or view the video here:
nan said:
Ok, I want to get back on track to Bill Browder. There are some new articles on him. First, I will post a new, more in depth, article by Tom Lugano, on the EU Article 7 invocation and how it is screwing the Danske bank:
Bill Browder Strikes Back in Europe
https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/17/bill-browder-strikes-back-europe/
excerpt:
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive ramifications for the global financial system unless he’s intimately connected with the very people that operate the top of that system?How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being ‘friends of Vladimir’ it’s obvious that the target isn’t Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in Rostov-on-Don.Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through the Moscow phone book.But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
The guys a conspiracy-monger, who hopes you won't factcheck him.
Look at his description of Browder:
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?
It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.
Look at what the financial press says about the start of his Russian investment company, Hermitage:
Graduating with an MBA in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, Browder decided to pursue opportunities in Eastern Europe. While working in the region for Boston Consulting Group and later Salomon Brothers, he saw how Soviet bloc countries like Poland and Russia were privatizing companies at absurdly low valuations. He soon realized there was a lucrative opportunity for investors to buy in cheaply to the post-Soviet Russian economy.
In 1996, Browder set up Hermitage with $25 million from the late Edmond Safra, a renowned banker. Browder moved to Moscow and focused on undervalued Russian companies overlooked by mainstream securities researchers. By the end of its first year, the Hermitage Fund soared to $100 million. Eighteen months after launching, it was worth $1 billion.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/bill-browder-warning-against-investment-russia
Browder wasn't "fresh off the boat". Safra was a billionaire. Luongo's claim that Browder getting funds to set up Hermitage "doesn't pass the sniff test" is just an enormous lie to support his conspiracy claim:
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
Yes, it's an international banking conspiracy against Russia going back 40 years. Maybe part of the International Jewish Conspiracy (Browder's family is Jewish, as was his billionaire partner, Safra). Does Luongo get George Soros involved in all this, also?
Thanks for showing an example of where all this anti-Browder propaganda is really coming from.
It is really exhausting to have to research nan's "sources", I thought I had exposed some of Luongo already, but nan doesn't seem to care as long as they fit the Pro Putin/ Anti US/ MSM is evil narrative.
Hey Rachel has HILLARY on tonight!!!!
dave said:
Tom Luongo writes for Newsmax. Pick a side already.
I'm not a Tom Lungo fan, although I think he is quirky and interesting. This is not an endorsement. He's a high drama Libertarian bitcoin guy. But, for some reason, he follows the Browder story and I like to hear (with skepticism) what he has to say about Browder's investments in Cyprus.
jamie said:
It is really exhausting to have to research nan's "sources", I thought I had exposed some of Luongo already, but nan doesn't seem to care as long as they fit the Pro Putin/ Anti US/ MSM is evil narrative.
Hey Rachel has HILLARY on tonight!!!!
I'm not endorsing Luongo--although I think he's interesting to hear. I'm not Pro-Putin either, although I do despise the MSM, which goes overboard on the anti-Russian propaganda so you will be sure to cheer on WW3. Maybe start building that bomb shelter now. And check under the bed. Sorry I missed Rachel and Hillary. Perfect together. I bet they talked about threats to our Democracy, although they both actively pursue those.
jamie said:
It is really exhausting to have to research nan's "sources", I thought I had exposed some of Luongo already, but nan doesn't seem to care as long as they fit the Pro Putin/ Anti US/ MSM is evil narrative.
Hey Rachel has HILLARY on tonight!!!!
So why do you bother? It's an endless sewer of stupidity that is designed to suck the life out of you.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:The guys a conspiracy-monger, who hopes you won't factcheck him.
Ok, I want to get back on track to Bill Browder. There are some new articles on him. First, I will post a new, more in depth, article by Tom Lugano, on the EU Article 7 invocation and how it is screwing the Danske bank:
Bill Browder Strikes Back in Europe
https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/17/bill-browder-strikes-back-europe/
excerpt:
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive ramifications for the global financial system unless he’s intimately connected with the very people that operate the top of that system?How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being ‘friends of Vladimir’ it’s obvious that the target isn’t Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in Rostov-on-Don.Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through the Moscow phone book.But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
Look at his description of Browder:
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?Look at what the financial press says about the start of his Russian investment company, Hermitage:
It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.
Graduating with an MBA in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, Browder decided to pursue opportunities in Eastern Europe. While working in the region for Boston Consulting Group and later Salomon Brothers, he saw how Soviet bloc countries like Poland and Russia were privatizing companies at absurdly low valuations. He soon realized there was a lucrative opportunity for investors to buy in cheaply to the post-Soviet Russian economy.https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/bill-browder-warning-against-investment-russia
In 1996, Browder set up Hermitage with $25 million from the late Edmond Safra, a renowned banker. Browder moved to Moscow and focused on undervalued Russian companies overlooked by mainstream securities researchers. By the end of its first year, the Hermitage Fund soared to $100 million. Eighteen months after launching, it was worth $1 billion.
Browder wasn't "fresh off the boat". Safra was a billionaire. Luongo's claim that Browder getting funds to set up Hermitage "doesn't pass the sniff test" is just an enormous lie to support his conspiracy claim:
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.Yes, it's an international banking conspiracy against Russia going back 40 years. Maybe part of the International Jewish Conspiracy (Browder's family is Jewish, as was his billionaire partner, Safra). Does Luongo get George Soros involved in all this, also?
Thanks for showing an example of where all this anti-Browder propaganda is really coming from.
This guy may be something of a nut, but Bill Browder is still a liar and a fake. You keep saying it is "propaganda" but the propaganda is Browder's story. As I have shown in this thread, Browder does not have evidence to back up his claim, especially when he was cross-examined under oath. You can scream conspiracy theory all you want, but instead, why don't you produce actual evidence to show that Browder's great "lawyer" (who never lost a case cause he was not even a lawyer) was killed because he was exposing corruption.
nan u also need to ask - why on earth is Magnitsky dead. So many things should and could have been done to save his life. It’s amazing that you can question everything else except this incredibly sad fact.
jamie said:
nan u also need to ask - why on earth is Magnitsky dead. So many things should and could have been done to save his life. It’s amazing that you can question everything else except this incredibly sad fact.
I have questioned this a few times, Jamie, and it is an important question. But, here is question you might not have thought about--and I think this came from Luongo--who really benefits from Magnitsky's deatht? Now, the Magnitsky Act, and most of you on MOL blame Putin. But, looking closer, why would Putin want Magnitsky dead, since he was really Browder's accountant and could be used to testify against him during the trial? Magnitsky really knew how the whole shell company-hidden assets thing operated. So, an alive Magnitsky would have been better for Putin's case against Browder. Browder says Magnitsky uncovered fraud and that's why he was killed, but there is no evidence to show that. What is morbidly true is that a dead Magnitsky is much better for Bill Browder. He can't tell tales and he can be used as a personal humanitarian shield for Browder. According to Lucy Komisar and that Russian Lawyer lady, Browder could have paid some back taxes and gotten Magnistky out of jail, but he did not. Also, there is no evidence that he did anything to help Magnitsky while he was in jail and some testimony by a fellow inmate that Browder wanted him to take the fall and/or was abandoning him. His poor treatment in prison, especially near the end (he had better treatment when he was first there) was what killed him, but, he could have been
nan said:
jamie said:I'm not endorsing Luongo--although I think he's interesting to hear. I'm not Pro-Putin either, although I do despise the MSM, which goes overboard on the anti-Russian propaganda so you will be sure to cheer on WW3. Maybe start building that bomb shelter now. And check under the bed. Sorry I missed Rachel and Hillary. Perfect together. I bet they talked about threats to our Democracy, although they both actively pursue those.
It is really exhausting to have to research nan's "sources", I thought I had exposed some of Luongo already, but nan doesn't seem to care as long as they fit the Pro Putin/ Anti US/ MSM is evil narrative.
Hey Rachel has HILLARY on tonight!!!!
Oh, looks like I predicted right about Hillary and Rachel:
| https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1042228262490046464 |
|---|
nan said:Oh, looks like I predicted right about Hillary and Rachel:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1042228262490046464
This guy writes: "Clinton tells @maddow that she was an obstacle to Russia's plan to undermine our democracy & suggests we should be scared of the Kremlin's grand designs. The lengths these people will go to protect their privilege & deflect from their own failures is staggering, & a real threat."
Manafort plead guilty to trying to smear Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, to influence U.S. policy and protect his client the President of Ukraine. It's not that much of a leap to the claim about interference in 2016.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:This guy may be something of a nut, but Bill Browder is still a liar and a fake. You keep saying it is "propaganda" but the propaganda is Browder's story. As I have shown in this thread, Browder does not have evidence to back up his claim, especially when he was cross-examined under oath. You can scream conspiracy theory all you want, but instead, why don't you produce actual evidence to show that Browder's great "lawyer" (who never lost a case cause he was not even a lawyer) was killed because he was exposing corruption.
The guys a conspiracy-monger, who hopes you won't factcheck him.
Look at his description of Browder:
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?Look at what the financial press says about the start of his Russian investment company, Hermitage:
It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.
Graduating with an MBA in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, Browder decided to pursue opportunities in Eastern Europe. While working in the region for Boston Consulting Group and later Salomon Brothers, he saw how Soviet bloc countries like Poland and Russia were privatizing companies at absurdly low valuations. He soon realized there was a lucrative opportunity for investors to buy in cheaply to the post-Soviet Russian economy.https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/bill-browder-warning-against-investment-russia
In 1996, Browder set up Hermitage with $25 million from the late Edmond Safra, a renowned banker. Browder moved to Moscow and focused on undervalued Russian companies overlooked by mainstream securities researchers. By the end of its first year, the Hermitage Fund soared to $100 million. Eighteen months after launching, it was worth $1 billion.
Browder wasn't "fresh off the boat". Safra was a billionaire. Luongo's claim that Browder getting funds to set up Hermitage "doesn't pass the sniff test" is just an enormous lie to support his conspiracy claim:
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.Yes, it's an international banking conspiracy against Russia going back 40 years. Maybe part of the International Jewish Conspiracy (Browder's family is Jewish, as was his billionaire partner, Safra). Does Luongo get George Soros involved in all this, also?
Thanks for showing an example of where all this anti-Browder propaganda is really coming from.
"This guy may be something of a nut"? He's more than that. You posted the article, and it was pretty easy to show that your author was lying. You're trying a "whatabout" - and I don't have to "produce actual evidence to show that Browder's great "lawyer" (who never lost a case cause he was not even a lawyer) was killed because he was exposing corruption."
First off, whether Magnitsky was a lawyer or an accountant is a red herring. Apparently, he was an accountant who worked for a law firm. Big deal. And second, if you're relying on obvious fake claims to undercut Browder, you can't just say "Never mind, prove me wrong".
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:"This guy may be something of a nut"? He's more than that. You posted the article, and it was pretty easy to show that your author was lying. You're trying a "whatabout" - and I don't have to "produce actual evidence to show that Browder's great "lawyer" (who never lost a case cause he was not even a lawyer) was killed because he was exposing corruption."
South_Mountaineer said:This guy may be something of a nut, but Bill Browder is still a liar and a fake. You keep saying it is "propaganda" but the propaganda is Browder's story. As I have shown in this thread, Browder does not have evidence to back up his claim, especially when he was cross-examined under oath. You can scream conspiracy theory all you want, but instead, why don't you produce actual evidence to show that Browder's great "lawyer" (who never lost a case cause he was not even a lawyer) was killed because he was exposing corruption.
The guys a conspiracy-monger, who hopes you won't factcheck him.
Look at his description of Browder:
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990’s, fresh ‘off the boat’ as it were, convince someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at less than pennies on the dollar?Look at what the financial press says about the start of his Russian investment company, Hermitage:
It simply doesn’t pass a basic sniff test.
Graduating with an MBA in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, Browder decided to pursue opportunities in Eastern Europe. While working in the region for Boston Consulting Group and later Salomon Brothers, he saw how Soviet bloc countries like Poland and Russia were privatizing companies at absurdly low valuations. He soon realized there was a lucrative opportunity for investors to buy in cheaply to the post-Soviet Russian economy.https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/bill-browder-warning-against-investment-russia
In 1996, Browder set up Hermitage with $25 million from the late Edmond Safra, a renowned banker. Browder moved to Moscow and focused on undervalued Russian companies overlooked by mainstream securities researchers. By the end of its first year, the Hermitage Fund soared to $100 million. Eighteen months after launching, it was worth $1 billion.
Browder wasn't "fresh off the boat". Safra was a billionaire. Luongo's claim that Browder getting funds to set up Hermitage "doesn't pass the sniff test" is just an enormous lie to support his conspiracy claim:
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd’s single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.Yes, it's an international banking conspiracy against Russia going back 40 years. Maybe part of the International Jewish Conspiracy (Browder's family is Jewish, as was his billionaire partner, Safra). Does Luongo get George Soros involved in all this, also?
Thanks for showing an example of where all this anti-Browder propaganda is really coming from.
First off, whether Magnitsky was a lawyer or an accountant is a red herring. Apparently, he was an accountant who worked for a law firm. Big deal. And second, if you're relying on obvious fake claims to undercut Browder, you can't just say "Never mind, prove me wrong".
What is the author lying about? And yes, you need to show evidence that Browder's "lawyer" was killed for revealing financial fraud. Browder said he was deliberately beaten and killed because he was exposing corruption. Where is the evidence for that? Not there. And it is important that he was an accountant, because accountants set up shell companies and this guy had been working for Browder for 10 years. He was not someone just hired that Browder did not know. So where is the evidence? Cause there is evidence in the form of sworn testimony to contradict Browder's story.
sbenois said:
jamie said:So why do you bother? It's an endless sewer of stupidity that is designed to suck the life out of you.
It is really exhausting to have to research nan's "sources", I thought I had exposed some of Luongo already, but nan doesn't seem to care as long as they fit the Pro Putin/ Anti US/ MSM is evil narrative.
Hey Rachel has HILLARY on tonight!!!!
I appreciate the efforts. There’s enough information, plus thought-provoking comments and sources, in these threads to make them worth my while, and the fact-checking — however dike-like it may be — is Campbell’s for my wretched soul. I assume I’m not the only one it helps. Thanks, Jamie (and the rest).
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:This guy writes: "Clinton tells @maddow that she was an obstacle to Russia's plan to undermine our democracy & suggests we should be scared of the Kremlin's grand designs. The lengths these people will go to protect their privilege & deflect from their own failures is staggering, & a real threat."
Oh, looks like I predicted right about Hillary and Rachel:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1042228262490046464
Manafort plead guilty to trying to smear Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, to influence U.S. policy and protect his client the President of Ukraine. It's not that much of a leap to the claim about interference in 2016.
No that is a big leap. But, I'm sure Clinton and Maddow and nohero, I mean SouthMtner, can handle it.
DaveSchmidt said:
Campbell’s for my wretched soul
nan said:
nohero, I mean SouthMtner
Speak of the devil.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
You're probably thinking of the "Tulsi says let Assad bomb more civilians in Syria to avenge 9/11" thread, which has started to have some wacky propaganda cited to support that position.