Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
ridski said:
nan said:Neither is Veselnitskaya, why is she setting up meetings to lobby a guy who had no chance of winning the presidency at the time to change a bipartisan US law?
ridski said: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?
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 Russiangovernmentprivate 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 forhelp to beat Clinton in the electionthe 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?
She did not set up the meeting. She was interested in meeting many people and I seem to remember wanted to talk to Congress. I think she's currently banned from coming here now.
jamie said:
So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?
Of course! Why don't you?!!
Who wouldn't? I watched part of that embarrassing Sputnik radio setup. First of all: the set looks like it was a table with a camera poised at a big brother angle that didn't show any of their faces. Weird. You can't even tell who's talking. Then they flip to the big screen and Krainer comes on talking about something -- I couldn't tell what, but words were definitely coming out of his mouth -- then one of the Sputnik crew laughs at something and says "I'm going to tweet your book out now" and starts typing on his computer. I don't use Twitter, but go to Amazon and look up the book, which sells for $25 (I could get 3 really good novels for that much) and has two reviews, so I'm wondering: there are three Sputnik guys interviewing Krainer. Where's the third review? That's when it hits me: they're morons.
dave said:
Who wouldn't? I watched part of that embarrassing Sputnik radio setup. First of all: the set looks like it was a table with a camera poised at a big brother angle that didn't show any of their faces. Weird. You can't even tell who's talking. Then they flip to the big screen and Krainer comes on talking about something -- I couldn't tell what, but words were definitely coming out of his mouth -- then one of the Sputnik crew laughs at something and says "I'm going to tweet your book out now" and starts typing on his computer. I don't use Twitter, but go to Amazon and look up the book, which sells for $25 (I could get 3 really good novels for that much) and has two reviews, so I'm wondering: there are three Sputnik guys interviewing Krainer. Where's the third review? That's when it hits me: they're morons.
It's a radio show. duh! I"m sure they have zero budget for a set. Stop comparing low-budget radio shows to establishment news which looks good and just gives Bill Browder a free pass. That NPR interview was like hero worship. Is that what you respect? And the fact that they covered it at all shows they are smarter than most.
Don't know why Krainer's book is $25 dollars, but maybe he has extra legal fees trying to keep it available. The movie is for free online. Watch soon; it might disappear.
drummerboy said:
jamie said:Of course! Why don't you?!!
So you have 100% faith in what Veselnitskaya told Garland?
Yes, based on the evidence I already posted. Why do you doubt what she said?
nan said:
ridski said:She did not set up the meeting. She was interested in meeting many people and I seem to remember wanted to talk to Congress. I think she's currently banned from coming here now.
nan said:Neither is Veselnitskaya, why is she setting up meetings to lobby a guy who had no chance of winning the presidency at the time to change a bipartisan US law?
ridski said: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?
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 Russiangovernmentprivate 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 forhelp to beat Clinton in the electionthe 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?
Ooh, that’s good I like that answer. No she didn’t set it up. Goldstone set it up. Because Goldstone just knows random Russian lawyers with dirt on Clinton, yes? So Goldstone went out specifically to find cute (that’s my bias, sorry) Russian lawyers who desperately want the Magnitsky Act revoked to meet with the SON OF THE guy who had no chance of being president. I mean they didn’t approach Chelsea Clinton, or her husband or anyone else. Just the SON OF THE GUY who all Republicans were against and no one took as a serious candidate.
What a crazy idea, right?
ridski said:
nan said:Ooh, that’s good I like that answer. No she didn’t set it up. Goldstone set it up. Because Goldstone just knows random Russian lawyers with dirt on Clinton, yes? So Goldstone went out specifically to find cute (that’s my bias, sorry) Russian lawyers who desperately want the Magnitsky Act revoked to meet with the SON OF THE guy who had no chance of being president. I mean they didn’t approach Chelsea Clinton, or her husband or anyone else. Just the SON OF THE GUY who all Republicans were against and no one took as a serious candidate.
ridski said:She did not set up the meeting. She was interested in meeting many people and I seem to remember wanted to talk to Congress. I think she's currently banned from coming here now.
nan said:Neither is Veselnitskaya, why is she setting up meetings to lobby a guy who had no chance of winning the presidency at the time to change a bipartisan US law?
ridski said: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?
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 Russiangovernmentprivate 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 forhelp to beat Clinton in the electionthe 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?
What a crazy idea, right?
I just finished watching the film. I'm stunned. It's eye opening and compelling. I would suggest you all watch it before jumping all over me. https://www.real.video/5811804296001
Watch the film and then tell me this guy is not a total scam artist.
Going back to what you wrote, I have not idea what you are getting at. The guy who set up the meeting knew what to say to Trump to get the meeting. He is a PR guy--they know what to do. I think you are reading too much into it. She also spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is a summary of what she said:
"https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/06/fault-lines-interview-browders-spain-arrest-manaforts-notes/
"The second part tells how Paul Manafort’s “cryptic” notes of the Trump Tower meeting, released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, are not so cryptic when set next to Prevezon lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s testimony. She discussed Browder’s corruption, running Russian profits through Cyprus shell companies to take advantage of a Cyprus-Russian treaty providing only 5% taxes on Cyprus profits. Since Browder was just using the Cyprus companies as a pass-through to evade Russia’s 35% taxes, this was fraud.
She also talked about how the Ziff Brothers, Browder’s major investors, had used fake loans to disguise their investments and thereby evade US taxes on profits, again running the money transfers through the Cyprus shells.
Browder is trying to get Cyprus authorities to refuse Russian investigators access to the Cyprus shell company documents that would prove the fraud on Russian tax authorities. Will the IRS also seek the documents?"
If you watch the film, you will not be thinking about what happened in the Trump Tower meeting. You will be thinking about how this guy played whole countries for the fool. And who is it that is backing him in this fraud?
I'm sure Trump is a crook too, but you are not going to get him through connecting dots to this meeting. Sorry.
Jesus Christ. The Russians have really got this thing down. Identified a glaring weakness and exploited it. And continue to exploit it. You kind of have to admire them. ****** backwater with a Mexico-size economy fractured the Eurozone and NATO with a couple of Tweets.
Here's an interesting take on the "eye opening and compelling" video:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dissident-director-helped-trumps-russia-comrade-attack-us
In one of the film’s eureka moments, Nekrasov points to testimony given by Magnitsky in October 2008 as proof that the theft was actually reported not by him but by a pensioner who accused Browder’s companies for wrongdoing.
But Browder’s employees had filed another document with police five months before the pensioner’s supposed statements, saying they feared the documents seized in a search of their office were used to perpetrate the fraud.
“Who is the person who reported the crime first?” Nekrasov asks rhetorically in the film.
Browder says he didn’t find out about the movie until promotions started in 2016. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was invited to an exclusive screening at the Newseum, funded by Veselnitskaya’s group. Browder and his team worked up a response to the nearly three-hour film, which claims to capture Nekrasov’s realization that Browder’s claims of Magnitsky’s death at the hands of Russian authorities were all lies.
jamie said:
Here's an interesting take on the "eye opening and compelling" video:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dissident-director-helped-trumps-russia-comrade-attack-us
In one of the film’s eureka moments, Nekrasov points to testimony given by Magnitsky in October 2008 as proof that the theft was actually reported not by him but by a pensioner who accused Browder’s companies for wrongdoing.But Browder’s employees had filed another document with police five months before the pensioner’s supposed statements, saying they feared the documents seized in a search of their office were used to perpetrate the fraud.“Who is the person who reported the crime first?” Nekrasov asks rhetorically in the film.Browder says he didn’t find out about the movie until promotions started in 2016. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was invited to an exclusive screening at the Newseum, funded by Veselnitskaya’s group. Browder and his team worked up a response to the nearly three-hour film, which claims to capture Nekrasov’s realization that Browder’s claims of Magnitsky’s death at the hands of Russian authorities were all lies.
I predicted you would quote from that article! I read it a few days ago and thought, "What a piece of crap, evidence-free smear fest. Bet that will get posted on MOL!" Should have bet money!
Anyway, I think the person writing it did not pay much attention and just wanted to support Browder. For one thing the person called a "pensioner" was called that by Browder, not by Nekrosov. And this was an important point, because the crime was shown to have been reported the way Browder describes Manitsky reporting it, but by somone else months before. Nekrosov, shows himself in the film slowly understanding how the scam worked. It's very complicated, involving shell companies and shifts of ownership. It can be difficult to understand in parts, because it's such a complicated set up to take money and put it into shell companies and then kill the people who do that for you and transfer ownership not using original documents.
Please watch the film. Make some popcorn and enjoy it. It's an amazing story.
https://www.real.video/5811804296001
Did you predict I would post this article also?
The film won’t grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky’s family. We don’t worry that Mr. Nekrasov’s film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions.
You said of the other article:
I read it a few days ago and thought, "What a piece of crap, evidence-free smear fest. Bet that will get posted on MOL!" Should have bet money!
You're sort of smearing everyone on MOL with that line - nice!
Edited to add this: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
jamie said:
Did you predict I would post this article also?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russian-agitprop-lands-in-washington/2016/06/19/784805ec-33dc-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.6563d66c2563
The film won’t grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky’s family. We don’t worry that Mr. Nekrasov’s film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions.You said of the other article:
I read it a few days ago and thought, "What a piece of crap, evidence-free smear fest. Bet that will get posted on MOL!" Should have bet money!You're sort of smearing everyone on MOL with that line - nice!
Edited to add this: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
No, did not see that one, although it does not have any more than the last. Looks like I hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I just think you are doing anything to find something negative about the movie without seeing it. I did a lot of research myself so I kinda know what's out there. The thing is, Browder was able to play on people's conceived ideas of what Russia is like and confirm them. People don't want to have to reconsider that.
But, without that prejudice, the whole Browder story just sounds like a fairy tale: Big foreign 1990's business man in Russia goes to the end of the earth to fight for justice for his martyred friend. Once you know what American business men were doing in Russia in the 1990's it seems a bit far fetched. It was already an unbelievable movie script before it was a movie. It just sounds ridiculous when you don't automatically think of the Russians as thugs and murders and don't know better than to think vulture capitalists can be selfless humanitarians.
I have read some more compelling criticism of the movie that tried to give some benefit to each side, but even there they had to admit that Browder had much more motivation to lie, questioned his refusal to be cross-examined, his behavior under oath and the ease of falsifying documents in Russia. Browder has the money and influence to keep the lie going, and I've heard that he's now, in reaction to the film, produced a new set of documents to prove his innocence, but based on the film, I can't believe anything he says. Watch the movie before you post more support for Browder. It might change the way you view the situation. Or maybe not. Maybe Browder is telling the truth. I'm thinking not, but the shadow banks might be able to help him keep it going for quite some time.
ok, and your thoughts on this one: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
Or were you just commenting on the first link?
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
This is also a great overview of the whole Magnitsky case: http://russian-untouchables.com/rus/docs/P01E.pdf (with link to source documents).
I don't understand why Russia's response to this would be to ban adoptions by U.S. citizens. If Browder really was the criminal in this case, why not just show the evidence in order to get the Magnitsky Act repealed? Why use kids as leverage to try to get it repealed?
It's not that I can't believe Browder was or is a crook and con man. It's just that none of the events that have arisen from this case make much sense if he's really the guilty party.
ridski said:
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
3 weeks from now there will be a grainy YouTube clip posted by @FriendlyAmerican_NotKremlin that blames Hillary. That would be fine, but half the country will believe it.
ml1 said:
I don't understand why Russia's response to this would be to ban adoptions by U.S. citizens. If Browder really was the criminal in this case, why not just show the evidence in order to get the Magnitsky Act repealed? Why use kids as leverage to try to get it repealed?
It's not that I can't believe Browder was or is a crook and con man. It's just that none of the events that have arisen from this case make much sense if he's really the guilty party.
They have been trying to show evidence, but the people who can present it are on the Magnitsky banned list. That's what the Trump Tower meeting was about. Also, the lawyer there was trying desperately to be able to testify before Congress. She did get to talk to a committee.
jamie said:
ok, and your thoughts on this one: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
Or were you just commenting on the first link?
You keep posting stuff like this and I keep telling you to watch the movie. This stuff is covered in the movie. This document will only impress someone who has not seen the movie.
jamie said:
This is also a great overview of the whole Magnitsky case: http://russian-untouchables.com/rus/docs/P01E.pdf (with link to source documents).
No, it is a great overview of Browder's story on the Magnitsky case. The movie, and others tell a different tale.
ridski said:
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
I guess you forgot how Israeli snipers shoot journalists (and Palestinians) point blank for target practice. That's not the US, but a very close ali and we seem to be fine with it.
nan said:
jamie said:You keep posting stuff like this and I keep telling you to watch the movie. This stuff is covered in the movie. This document will only impress someone who has not seen the movie.
ok, and your thoughts on this one: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
Or were you just commenting on the first link?
So what lie outlined in the PDF don't you agree with? The "stuff like this" are inaccuracies in the movie you're trying to get us to watch.
nan said:
ridski said:I guess you forgot how Israeli snipers shoot journalists (and Palestinians) point blank for target practice. That's not the US, but a very close ali and we seem to be fine with it.
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
There has to be a name for this weird tactic someone mentions something that happened in the world and the response automatically begins with "I guess you forgot..."
Anyway, the Israeli snipers are even worse than the Russian mobsters because they're not even targeting the journalists for what they have written. It's just arbitrary murder. So...
nan said:
ml1 said:They have been trying to show evidence, but the people who can present it are on the Magnitsky banned list. That's what the Trump Tower meeting was about. Also, the lawyer there was trying desperately to be able to testify before Congress. She did get to talk to a committee.
I don't understand why Russia's response to this would be to ban adoptions by U.S. citizens. If Browder really was the criminal in this case, why not just show the evidence in order to get the Magnitsky Act repealed? Why use kids as leverage to try to get it repealed?
It's not that I can't believe Browder was or is a crook and con man. It's just that none of the events that have arisen from this case make much sense if he's really the guilty party.
why do they need to come to the U.S. to present their evidence?
nan said:
ridski said:I guess you forgot how Israeli snipers shoot journalists (and Palestinians) point blank for target practice. That's not the US, but a very close ali and we seem to be fine with it.
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
Really? Is there some evidence of that?
LOST said:
nan said:Really? Is there some evidence of that?
ridski said:I guess you forgot how Israeli snipers shoot journalists (and Palestinians) point blank for target practice. That's not the US, but a very close ali and we seem to be fine with it.
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
Yeah.
LOST said:
nan said:Really? Is there some evidence of that?
ridski said:I guess you forgot how Israeli snipers shoot journalists (and Palestinians) point blank for target practice. That's not the US, but a very close ali and we seem to be fine with it.
I’ll get to nan’s response later but I read this yesterday and thought about the difference between US suppression of free speech and how the Russians do it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-violence/three-russian-journalists-killed-in-central-african-republic-ambush-idUSKBN1KL2DX
For what it's worth, it's not really sniping if you're only 4 feet away. And it'd be far from 'practice' to repeatedly shoot from that range.
jamie said:
nan said:So what lie outlined in the PDF don't you agree with? The "stuff like this" are inaccuracies in the movie you're trying to get us to watch.
jamie said:You keep posting stuff like this and I keep telling you to watch the movie. This stuff is covered in the movie. This document will only impress someone who has not seen the movie.
ok, and your thoughts on this one: http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/Nekrasov%20Lies%20Presentaion%20June%20(ENG)%20NEW%20JUNE%202016%20v%202.pdf
Or were you just commenting on the first link?
That document is for people that have not seen the movie and is a contrived smear piece. For example, notice the way they describe the director as though he is pro-Putin. He talks in the movie about how much he hates Putin and how difficult it was for him to come to terms with what he was finding. Also, there are pictures used as evidence like the beating pictures that are shown to be frauds in the movie. What happens is that much of the evidence in the west is translated inaccurately from Russian. The director, can read Russian, and so he went back and found the original documents and saw the contradictions. The autopsy report says there were not bruises on the head. Also, the log of where he gets moved around in prison is contradicted. Browder says he is left in a cell open to the elements, which is true, but it's in Summer and it gets fixed by Fall. He's not exposed to the cold as Browder indicates. Also, he's a crook accountant instead of a noble lawyer. Also, some of the photos on Browder's website were pictures of people taken from the internet, not who they are labeled as. Also, in the movie are footage of Bill Browder being cross examined under oath and not sounding anything like what he sounds like in the NPR video. There are so many details. I did not spend a lot of time with your document, but those are the things I saw off the bat.
Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to be able to see it since it seems to have been taken off line. I'm glad I decided to watch last night. I had a feeling that link would not last long. That's really too bad, cause the film was extremely compelling. Perhaps someday it will be available again. I will keep googling it. I think the fact that we are prevented from seeing a movie also says a lot.
Neither is Veselnitskaya, why is she setting up meetings to lobby a guy who had no chance of winning the presidency at the time to change a bipartisan US law?