Bond villain strikes again?

[Pdine]

No you're deliberately misrepresenting his conclusions. Firstly, he states explicitly that he believes there was a strong case based on the open evidence -

Yes, he says something similar in the part I quoted. However he goes on to say that the conclusion is based on both the open and closed evidence.

Plus, if you read the full thing it almost entirely composed of him saying he thinks the russian state did it based on evidence openly given to the court. So the author of that article is 100% correct.

Obviously Owen's discussion will be of the public evidence, as that's all he can discuss in the public report. The author lies when he says that Owen's conclusion is only based on the open evidence.

edit to add: Also, what's your opinion of Mercouris' general veracity given the sites he writes for and his admitted forgery and lying to his client before he was ejected from the Bar?

[ieXush2i]

Mercouris only gets the time of day because he's willing to gleefully tell the "alternative media" the kind of lovely tales about Russia they want to hear, he'd be a laughing stock in any other circumstances.

[BlodwynPig]

The truth is out there, just not anywhere online

[Pdine]

If you believe anything Browder says you'll believe anything  -
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/28/guardians-of-the-magnitsky-myth/

That Parry article is funny:

Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud.

While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme.

The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims?

From the FT:

Magnitsky, an accountant — though Mr Browder calls him his lawyer, as he sometimes represented Hermitage in court — gave evidence about the fraud to police, but was later arrested by the very people he was investigating, and accused of tax evasion.

https://www.ft.com/content/1eb38914-2ca4-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95

Also, on the movie that Parry represents as gospel in that article:

The more I watched, the angrier I became, particularly at the moment when Nekrasov interviewed Sergei's mother, Natalya. She says in Russian something that clearly means "It is difficult for me to accept [deal with] the fact that Sergei was beaten just before he died and Nekrasov — fluent in both Russian and English — disingenuously translates that as "It's difficult for me to accept he was beaten before he died" and Nekrasov chimes in "Ah! Even Magnitsky's mother doesn't believe he was beaten!" That was when I knew all I needed to know about Nekrasov.

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/distorting-the-truth-behind-the-magnitsky-act-film-op-ed-53524

[Bhazor]

The hills Titty is willing to die on. Fucks sake.

[Pdine]

To convince Mrs Jamous [Mercouris] had obtained the huge settlement he showed her a letter purporting to be from Baroness Hale, expressing concern that the payment had not arrived.

The letter turned out to be a forgery.

[Mercouris] then made what the BSB described as "the most peculiar allegation" of all, that bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the then Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Mr Mercouris claimed Lord Phillips had pleaded with him to drop the case in exchange for a £50,000 bribe and that he had threatened to have his 102-year-old grandmother put into a care home.

At a BRB hearing in March 2012 Mr Mercouris, a former Citizens Advice Bureau worker who was called to the bar in 2006, was struck off and banned from practicing law.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/disgraced-barrister-turned-pro-putin-commentator-investigated/

[Paul Calf]

I've no idea, who do you think killed him? Do you think he was murdered? If we believe the western media pretty much all the FSB KGB does is goes around the world murdering people they have old feuds with.

Is it more or less believable now?

Do you know who the FSB are?

[biggytitbo]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/disgraced-barrister-turned-pro-putin-commentator-investigated/

Thats unfortunate. But fortunately you don't need to take his word for anything, you can check the deficiencies in the case he points out because they're in the inquiry itself.

[ieXush2i]

But Pdine has been pointing out the deficiencies in Mercouris' articles by referring to the actual inquiry itself

[Buelligan]

Bigs, just answer me - do you believe the FSB have never murdered, tortured, falsely imprisoned or otherwise intentionally harmed anyone?

Tell me what you believe is true, please.

[biggytitbo]

No, Pdines 'criticism' is simply to dismiss the entire thing based on his inability to read properly.

The central factors in the 'trial', whether the polonium could be shown to be from Russia, and whether the 2 accused men were connected to the FSB, where both unproven. Instead Owen based his judgment on the same anti-Russia, cold war groupthink shown in this thread.

Another article from the Nation, who have been quite good on Rusiagate, about the dangerous alliance between a foreign billionaire and US neocons gave us the Maginsky act, which was kind of grounf zero for Russiagate in many ways - https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-newseum-stood-up-for-the-first-amendment/

Browder's incessant lobbying resulted in the 2012 passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which places sanctions on individuals believed to be responsible for Magnitsky's death. The passage of the Magnitsky Act presaged the precipitous decline in US-Russian relations that followed and resulted in the Russian government's ban on American adoptions soon thereafter. As The Nation pointed out in December 2012, the Magnitsky Act "recklessly and needlessly jeopardized US-Russian cooperation in vital areas from Afghanistan and the Middle East to international terrorism and nuclear proliferation."

Yet the move toward a Global Magnitsky Act is troubling, because the original version of the act, as Nekrasov's film makes clear, was passed solely on the strength of the questionable accusations of one man. The question which then arises is this: Should ultra-wealthy foreign nationals like Browder be able to transform their personal vendettas against foreign governments into law?

In this respect the film provides a valuable service by asking how it is that American (and European) officials bought Browder's story without doing even the slightest due diligence. The American and European legislators who took Browder's version of events on faith now look credulous, at best.

[Buelligan]

That's not what I'm asking though Bigs.  I am asking

Do you believe the FSB have never murdered, tortured, falsely imprisoned or otherwise intentionally harmed anyone?

[phantom_power]

Tell me what you believe is true, please.

Whatever the opposite of conventional wisdom is. In that he can be the only free thinker in the room

[biggytitbo]

Bigs, just answer me - do you believe the FSB have never murdered, tortured, falsely imprisoned or otherwise intentionally harmed anyone?

Tell me what you believe is true, please.

I'm sure they have but there's a difference between what you believe and what you can prove isn't there? I mean the FSB might have been involved, but the actual evidence in this case, that is so unquestionably accepted by the western media in their never ending campaign of demonizing russia, is pretty thin.


That it's incredibly self serving is an additional warning sign to be sceptical.

[Buelligan]

But I'm asking you to be sceptical.  I'm asking you to look at what you base your belief in the innocence or guilt of the FSB (or any other similar group) on.  Do you need proof that they are responsible for extra-judicial killings?  Aren't they a bit like mercenaries or mafiosi, you don't actually need a photograph of them committing a murder to know that they do kill people?

If you accept this, and I think it's a pretty rational suggestion, then you must accept that it is very likely that Russian agents did kill Litvinenko and Berezovsky and have tried to murder Skripal but even if they are innocent of these crimes, they, like agents for all other secret services around the world, are murderous fucking pigs and complicit in the terrible crimes their agencies perpetrate.

[ieXush2i]

It's simple: the CIA and the FBI are pure evil, but the KGB/FSB? Little scamps.

[mobias]

Biggy I'm genuinely interested to know what you believe about Putin and the Russian government and why you choose to believe it?

If Putin isn't the dark lord of the Sith that he's portrayed as being where's the evidence that he's a great fair minded guy?

[biggytitbo]

There's a fairly decent summary of the counter case against Browder by one of his fellow hedge fund managers, who thinks he's full of shit - https://www.sott.net/article/369151-The-Truth-Perspective-Bill-Browder-the-Magnitsky-Act-and-anti-Russia-Sanctions-Interview-with-Alex-Krainer

Also, here's Browder running away into traffic after someone from a US court tried to serve him subpoena papers. Clearly a man with nothing to hide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

[jobotic]

Yeah but what do you think of Putin?

[biggytitbo]

I'm not spending any of my time answering these distractionary questions about Russia and Putin. They are irrelevant, nobody is arguing he's a great guy or there aren't problems in Russia, by far the more point right now is the worst warmongers in the world are orchestrating a massive propaganda campaign via the political and media establishment to demonize Russia in order to set up a new existential enemy to their system with which they can justify more wars and more rampant military spending. Lots and lots of people will die if they succeed. I'm not falling for it, and neither should you.

[Buelligan]

I don't think they care bigs, look at the fucking Middle East if you don't believe me.

[Alberon]

As I said before, Biggy, the US doesn't need to demonise Russia to justify its insane defence budget. There's still plenty of mileage in the Muslim Extremists and beyond that there is China which is spreading its military power and global influence year by year.

[biggytitbo]

As I said before, Biggy, the US doesn't need to demonise Russia to justify its insane defence budget. There's still plenty of mileage in the Muslim Extremists and beyond that there is China which is spreading its military power and global influence year by year.

China yeah, that's a bit more long term though, Muslim extremists are still useful but there's only so many nuclear submarines you can justify on the back of some desert-bound beheaders. I mean if you don't think they are trying to start a new cold war, with all the vast national security expenditure that involves even beyond weaponry, you aren't paying attention.

[ieXush2i]

N Korea too

[Buelligan]

I mean if you don't think they are trying to start a new cold war, with all the vast national security expenditure that involves even beyond weaponry, you aren't paying attention.

Yes, but just because this is probably true, it doesn't mean that Russia, China and almost everywhere isn't run by murderous criminals.

[Uncle TechTip]

Biggy has to be an employee of the IRG or on a mission from somebody. Why would he put so much effort in otherwise? Shades of the TFM?

[Bhazor]

Putin? Eh he seems alright. I mean I'm not saying he's an angel I'm sure he's done some cheeky things but you know nothing to get upset about

BBC "lying" about North Korea not showing the olympics? THIS IS PROOF THE BBC WANTS TO EXTERMINATE THE KOREAN POPULATION!

[jobotic]

Yes, but just because this is probably true, it doesn't mean that Russia, China and almost everywhere isn't run by murderous criminals.

It seems so obvious it's a wonder it needs saying.

[Isnt Anything]

The hills Titty is willing to die on. Fucks sake.

Biggy has to be an employee of the IRG or on a mission from somebody. Why would he put so much effort in otherwise? Shades of the TFM?

I really do think biggy has jumped the shark this time.

Yes of course there are efforts by various Western agencies to overly demonise Russia but to be honest they do not need to do very much when Russia does such a good job itself.

I do not wish to be unkind, but the technical phrase 'useful idiot' comes to mind.  Hopefully it is nothing more sinister than that.

[Pdine]

No, Pdines 'criticism' is simply to dismiss the entire thing based on his inability to read properly.

No actual examples though? Pity :)

The central factors in the 'trial',

*not a trial

whether the polonium could be shown to be from Russia, and whether the 2 accused men were connected to the FSB, where both unproven. Instead Owen based his judgment on the same anti-Russia, cold war groupthink shown in this thread.

A lot of this could be resolved by

(a) your reading about rules of evidence in enquiries vs trials
(b) your accepting that a barrister who has been struck off for fraud and is now an exclusively pro-Putin mouthpiece might not be the least biased source you could find