This is a painful, albeit rather telling, interview to watch. Matt Cartwright has not had the time to fully digest how to be a good resistance member, whereby he simultaneously argues for and against the economic and trade policies of President Trump.
On domestic economic policies, specifically trade, President Trump is essentially carrying out all of the objectives of the blue-dog (moderate) Democrat party. However, now the ‘resist we much overlay’ creates a pretzel dynamic for those same democrats. They are for the policies, but must oppose the person carrying out those policies. This is a goofy preview of what is to come in 2019.
.
Lost but not invisible in the Cartwright angst is any acceptance that President Obama never cancelled NAFTA; nor did President Obama ever challenge the one-way economics of China; both of these confrontations and resets are favored by the new co-chair of the democrat platform committee…. but favored/not-favored when Trump does it.
As an outcome of supporting/not supporting, policies they support/don’t support, what surfaces is a word salad mixed up faster than a bar blender.
NAFTA bad and USMCA better/not-better. NAFTA labor constructs horrible, and USMCA better/not-better; and ending with something about infrastructure spending that Democrats refused to engage in discussing throughout 2018, because the economy is on the precipice of an invisible recession, or something.
All the growth in factory investment and manufacturing jobs; as well as the lowest unemployment in 50-years means the economy is coming to an immediate collapse.
Tariffs are bad, they are creating too many U.S. jobs.
75% required North American content in USMCA is bad… it creates too many U.S. jobs.
The furniture industry might return; the electronics manufacturing industry is certainly returning; Speaker Pelosi and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka shout: damn you Trump and all of this expanded U.S. manufacturing job growth. Aiiieeeee.
Democrats want to argue for more restrictions on imports? Alright, alright, alright – Lucky Day, Lucky Day!
WhaFaSau? or something similar.
The democrats need new linguistics that explain upside-down counter-reality doublespeak words that can invert themselves and become something favorable to the resistance.
The bottom-line is…. On the domestic economic agenda, Democrats have no actual point of opposition that President Trump is not likely to embrace. Don’t like the USMCA? Okay, kill it, remember NAFTA bad, and we’ll go for something even more America First.
But wait… wha, huh?
President Trump directly supports middle-class U.S. workers more than any Democrat President ever has. You want more support for middle-class workers? Okay, spank me long time bad panda… let’s go for it.
Hate Wall Street, or at least need to do the pretend to hate Wall Street thing? Hey, #MeToo smiles POTUS! President Trump has clearly shown support for Main Street over Wall Street… that’s what America First is all about.
MAGA Trump hates the multinationals’ and favors the credit unions. Let’s roll !
Democrats are in a really unusual economic space with the dimension of their resistance. They don’t want to give President Trump any wins, but he’s working on almost all of their ‘claimed’ objectives for middle-class workers. If they come at Trump with legislation that benefits the U.S. economy/worker; he’s all good with that.
It’s not confirmational bias – IT’S CONFIRMATION !!
Today on Face The Nation Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner describes how his committee is working with Robert Mueller; including: (a) several criminal referrals (Cohen was one); and (b) the sharing of congressional transcripts so Mueller (the team, not the person) can cross reference statements given to him with testimony given to the SSCI.
.
Tell me again how letting SSCI Security Director, James Wolfe, off the hook for leaking classified intelligence to the media, including the Carter Page FISA application, was not to cover for SSCI members instructing Mr. Wolfe to carry out those leaks.
For several years, and with increased urgency at each discovery/admission, CTH has been highlighting how the SSCI was part of the 2015, 2016, 2017 plan to eliminate Donald Trump (spygate), and later remove President Trump (insurance policy).
The most recent series of events by Robert Mueller is a quid-pro-quo to cover for the SSCI involvement. This is not confirmational bias against the SSCI; this is factual evidence of the SSCI’s corruption. Please understand the basic issue here. The SSCI is complicit with the overall scheme – and Robert Mueller, via a plan of mutual benefit and coordination, is trying to protect that from surfacing.
♦The SSCI and Mueller are working together (per Warner)
♦The SSCI has sent transcripts to Mueller (per Warner)
♦The SSCI has sent criminal referrals to Mueller (per Warner)
Now consider:
♦The same SSCI was conducting covert communications with Christopher Steele via lobbyist Adam Waldman.
♦The same SSCI publicly leaked the Glenn Simpson transcript (D Feinstein), everyone seems to forget.
♦The same SSCI (Feinstein Staffer) Dan Jones paid Fusion GPS $50 million to continue operations against President Trump after the election. [That’s some CYA operation funding eh?] (And, oh yeah, Feinstein gave up her Vice-Chair seat)
♦The same SSCI had a security officer (Wolfe) leaking classified intelligence documents to the media (Ali Watkins).
♦The SSCI security officer was busted in December 2017, admitted the leaks (several reporters), and was never charged (Rosenstein/Mueller) with anything except one single count of lying to FBI.
♦Every corrupt FBI/DOJ and downstream official caught up in the congressional investigative web all want to talk to the same committee, the SSCI.
♦A whistleblower (Dennis Cain) comes forward to the DOJ-Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG gives the whistleblower full protection and recognition as a confirmed whistleblower. The IG gives the whistleblower’s evidence documents to the SSCI (per guidelines); what happens next? The whistleblower gets a 3:00am 16-agent FBI raid courtesy of authorization no-one can explain.
You seeing this?
You seeing the clarity inside this picture?
This is not just coincidental.
This is not me just haphazardly making a theory of how a corrupt Senate Committee and a corrupt Special Counsel working in concert with each other with mutual interests. This stuff is in our faces. All of the data-points involving the SSCI go in one direction…. toward corruption. There is not a single data-point going in the other direction.
Remember the Chair and Vice-Chair of the SSCI are two members of the oversight Gang of Eight. During the 2016 operation against candidate Trump, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr were part of that oversight. Reference John Brennan testimony:
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”… (link)
After the 2016 presidential election, Senator Dianne Feinstein turned over the Vice-Chair to Senator Mark Warner.
Remember, those SSCI Senators (Vice-Chair Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein and senior staffer Dan Jones etc.) were coordinating with Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign allies; and were direct participants in “Spygate” and the insurance policy known as the special counsel.
This is one of the reasons why it is likely, damned near certain, that senior SSCI senators instructed James Wolfe to leak information, including the March 17th copy of the Carter Page FISA application, and that is why Rosenstein and Mueller let James Wolfe plea to a much lesser one-count crime of lying.
Remember when SSCI senator Dianne Feinstein released the transcript of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony so that all of downstream participants could coordinate their stories? Oh, how quickly we forget.
It is near certain that Feinstein gave up her Senate Intelligence Vice-Chair position following the 2016 presidential election because there was an inherent political risk for any intelligence-oversight Democrat in relation to the FBI’s Trump operation, “spygate”. Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, then paid Fusion-GPS $50 million to continue the efforts.
Remember Oleg Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman having secret text messages with new SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner relaying communication from Christopher Steele that Senator Warner wanted to keep quiet?
Adam Waldman texting Senator Warner about Chris Steele and outlining how Feinstein’s former senior staffer Dan Jones was coming to see him.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is as corrupt and complicit within the entire spygate fiasco as the DOJ and FBI. That’s why Mueller and Rosenstein (small group) are working to protect the Senators and staff just like they protect the corrupt officials in the DOJ and FBI. Mueller’s entire operation is structured around this type of scheming cover-up.
This is Deep State (via Mueller/Rosenstein) fighting President Trump; and trying to blunt the declassification weapon he holds. Nothing more.
Some people have called Carter Page and/or George Papadopoulos “moles”, but that’s really not what it appears they were. The better description is “tools” or “pawns”. Once the U.S intelligence assets Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper dirtied them up, they gave the appearance of being involved in a vast Russian conspiracy.
It was the appearance that mattered in order to generate the foundation for: the counterintelligence operation; and the subsequent FISA surveillance warrant; and the Vast Russian Conspiracy narrative; and ultimately the post-election Special Counsel investigation. In total, this was the Peter Strzok “Insurance Policy“.
Chairman Nunes published the HPSCI Report on Russian Active Measures; and in doing so the DOJ and FBI redacted his report for the public. Nunes objected to the redactions.
In part of the report the HPSCI describes the origin of the FBI 2016 Counterintelligence Operation. The DOJ and FBI redacted the paragraph where Nunes outlined who was targeted at the start.
If my analysis is accurate, there were FOUR initial targets of the FBI counterintelligence operation who were connected to the Trump campaign. Here’s what I think those redactions are hiding:
The DOJ didn’t redact Carter Page because he was already ‘outed’ in the House FISA memo. However, I believe the current DOJ redactions are hiding George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.
Those would be the July 2016 targets outlined by the originating EC (electronic communication) from John Brennan when the FBI Counterintelligence operation began.
The CIA provided raw intel, and the NSA generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. After the November 2016 election, those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were eventually leaked to the media in a coordinated effort to undermine the incoming administration.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his May 2017 testimony John Brennan tried to take himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper, while rubbing his face and scratching his head, had taken the same route earlier. That left the majority of scrutiny for the anti-Trump intelligence operation upon James Comey.
This explained why Comey changed his mind on testifying to congress in May of 2017 until he had the opportunity to talk to newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.
Former FBI Director James Comey is not stupid. He is, however, intensely political.
James Comey completely understood the legal risks he was facing within the faux “Russian conspiracy story” and the “subsequent leaking” of his political FBI reports. Comey was up to his eyeballs.
Remember, it was FEBRUARY 15, 2017 when the FBI (McCabe) went to President Trump’s Chief of Staff and privately told Reince Priebus there was no truth to media reports, based on FBI leaks, of FBI evidence showing Trump campaign officials involved with Russian officials regarding the 2016 election. It was all a complete nothingburger.
During that February 15th, 2017, meeting, while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Reince for 5 minutes alone. At the one-on-one meeting McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.
As a result Reince Priebus asked Andrew McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly and get the media off Priebus’ back about a ridiculously false narrative. Asst. Director McCabe said he would check with his boss, FBI Director James Comey.
Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it.
Reince Priebus was asking for the FBI to give truthful information about the false reports to the public. The White House was asking James Comey to deliver transparency.
Quote from the FBI to Priebus: “We’d love to help, but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story”…
Now think about this carefully. Those February 2017 media leaks (mentioned above) that drove the New York Times report were actually later shown to be leaks coming from James Comey.
Stop and think about it.
Andrew McCabe was telling Trump’s chief-of-staff Reince Priebus not to worry about a NYT report based on leaks that were coming from FBI Director James Comey. James Comey then tells Priebus, via McCabe, he cannot publicly refute the story which was based on his leaking.
Yea. Perhaps eventually everyone will see how Machiavellian this is.
Former FBI Director James Comey has withdrawn his motion to quash a congressional subpoena and announced on twitter that he will testify to the joint Oversight and Judiciary committee this week:
Washington DC – […] In a court filing in federal court Sunday, Comey’s lawyers moved to withdraw his motion to quash the subpoena, writing he “has now reached an acceptable accommodation” with the House Judiciary Committee for voluntary testimony. (more)
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodatte interviewed by Maria Bartiromo, and discusses his expectation that former FBI Director James Comey will withdraw his motion to quash the House subpoena later today.
According to Chairman Goodlatte he anticipates Comey sitting for a transcribed interview this week.
There are two known FBI whistleblowers; both tangentially connected to the FBI handling of Clinton matters. The first is William D Campbell, the whistleblower client of Victoria Toensing who has given testimony about Uranium-one (Clinton/Mueller) to the HPSCI and Senate Judiciry Committees. [More Here]
The second is the more recently known FBI whistleblower, Dennis Cain, who gave documents to DOJ/FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz that were passed on to the HPSCI (House) and SSCI (Senate). [More Here]
In this video the sister-in-law of Dennis Cain, Gracie West, describes recent events.
.
Notably at the 2:23 point, Ms. West communicates her understanding that the FBI personnel who raided the home of Mr. Cain were unaware of his confirmed and protected whistleblower status. If accurate, that’s very interesting.
If the FBI officials lack of knowledge is factually true (an assumption) the question(s) would be:
Who authorized the raid; and what was the precept for it?
Additionally, why wouldn’t they know of Mr. Cain’s whistleblower status?
We already know the Senate Intelligence Committee is at significant risk and entirely tied-up in the matrix of a weaponized intelligence apparatus. As a result of the SSCI participating in all of the unlawful ‘spygate’ and ‘insurance policy’ events, the SSCI is compromised. [Summary Reminder Here] Did members within the SSCI share knowledge of Mr. Cain’s activity with their corrupt, and similarly at risk, allies in the DOJ and FBI? Was that the predicate for the raid?
Along the same lines:
♦President Trump has made a point to note he did not, and does not, know Matthew Whitaker prior to the interim appointment as acting U.S. Attorney General. Heck, he’s gone out of his way to seemingly overemphasize this point.
Who advised the President to appoint Whitaker?
Why did they advise the President to appoint Matt Whitaker?
♦It is also noted that John Solomon broadcast last evening that U.S. Attorney John Huber reached out to another whistleblower, perhaps a third, presumably within the Clinton Foundation late Friday. Name Unknown. [Video Here]
Who would have told John Solomon that event took place?
Why would someone inform John Solomon that event took place?
Interestingly these data-points and questions can be viewed differently depending on the disposition of the reviewer.
From an optimistic perspective (ie. Rosenstein/Mueller honorable) these could be good events, and indicate action taken for good intents and purposes….. Or, by reviewing the action from a disposition where each activity is being undertaken to protect the administrative state and corrupt officials (ie. Rosenstein/Mueller corrupt), this could all just as easily indicate bad intents and purposes.
You decide.
ps. [Take this part with a grain of salt] Almost two years ago CTH warned everyone to be cautious of the reporting from S. Carter and J. Solomon because the issues being reported were about intelligence matters. There is a historic pattern of deep state officials using leaks to unwitting media people to advance their interests. My concern on this issue has never faded; ex. when Adam Waldman (Deep State Lobbyist) contacted Solomon for an article about Oleg Deripaska I again repeated the warning: Why would Waldman contact Solomon? Who’s interests were being served? My concern continues unchanged through today…. and is connected TO THIS.
Always be aware that when it comes to the administrative state -within the information- we might be getting played; even with the ‘unwitting’ participation of people we may consider as allies. Their sources could have ulterior motives.
Joe diGenova on The Sean Hannity Show (11/26/2018) – 10 Insightful Books to Help You Understand What President Trump Is Actually up Against: https://goo.gl/62ewbj
On tonight’s broadcast of Fox News with Sean Hannity: the team of Sara Carter, John Solomon and Sean Hannity preview great expectations for the first week in December:
There is growing acceptance that federal officials feel they are above the law; two sets of legal principles that apply; one exclusive set for them, and another set for everyone else.
Though it might seem rather stunning for any federal official to make such an admission in public, that’s exactly what happened today. Lawyers representing former FBI Director James Comey made exactly that argument. Recognizing Mr. Comey had no legal basis to avoid a congressional subpoena, Comey’s lawyers actually said:
“Here’s your opportunity, judge, to make some law.” (link)
Former FBI chief James Comey is trying to avoid being deposed by a joint committee in congress for his conduct in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 DOJ/FBI operations against candidate Donald Trump. Today congressional lawyers responded to Comey’s lawsuit attempting to avoid questioning (full pdf below).
The statement from lawyers representing James Comey was made during a hearing in front of federal Judge Trevor McFadden. They are asking the judge to create laws from the bench.
Think about this.
These are lawyers for the former United States FBI Director asking a federal judge to ignore all current law and create law, a special law, specifically to the benefit of their client.
Now, accepting that James Comey is asking a federal judge to ignore the law, ask yourself what James Comey was likely doing as the FBI Director.
WASHINGTON DC – Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey and the US House of Representatives fought in court Friday afternoon over whether Comey must testify to Congress in a private hearing next week.
While Comey technically seeks to pause or kill the subpoena, he is using the case to air his accusation that members of the Republican-led House and Senate selectively leak details for their own benefit when they call witnesses to testify in private.
Attorneys for the House called Comey’s request “so extraordinary and frivolous that, as far as undersigned counsel is aware, no district court in the history of the Republic has ever granted such a request.”
Judge Trevor McFadden said at the hearing that he hoped to rule Monday morning after meeting again with both legal teams.
The meat of Friday’s dispute was how each side characterizes Comey’s congressional subpoena. Comey’s team says Congress is in violation of its own rules by not conducting its fact-finding hearing in public. The hearing won’t require that level of secrecy because no sensitive law enforcement information is expected to be discussed, Comey’s team said.
The House general counsel countered that because Comey’s testimony would be a deposition with staff, a public session isn’t required.
McFadden asked whether Comey could release a transcript of his testimony to get the full picture before the public. But Comey’s lawyers said that would take too much time, allowing leaks of the information before Comey could release his full testimony.
When McFadden asked Comey’s attorney whether he agreed with the House that a judge has never limited Congress in this way before, the lawyer David Kelley responded, “Here’s your opportunity, Judge.” (read more)
Of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defends cab drivers rather than the riders. Uber is infinitely better than any cab in New York City not to mention cleaner. These people are not capable of ever looking out for the consumer – only those with lobby money in hand for the next election
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is a Norwegian, internationally supported investigative documentary feature. Its scheduled premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels on April 27 2016 was cancelled at the last moment due to the legal threats from the protagonists at the centre of the investigation. A few days later ARTE (a French-German TV network that co-financed the film) annulled the May 3 broadcast at a short notice. The legal and political pressure on the film and its makers has continued ever since. In September 2018 the film was taken down by Vimeo for allegeddefamation.
The film tells the story of how William (Bill) Browder, an American born investment consultant and manager of a fund trading in Russian energy companies’ shares, invented a seminal narrative of Russian corruption and brutality.
Using PowerPoint presentations and twowebsites Browder (and a team of his mainly Russian U.K. based associates) developed a story about a lawyer and heroic whistleblower Sergei Magntisky who had uncovered an elaborate financial fraud and exposed its perpetrators, in particular, two police officers who subsequently had Magnitsky arrested and imprisoned. During Magnitsky’s year long detention he was, according to Browder, tortured every day to be forced to take back his accusations of the police. Magnitsky refused and was beaten to death, Browder claims, by eight riot guards in an isolation prison cell in November 2009.
The fraud Magnitsky allegedly uncovered was a large fraudulent refund (approx. USD 230 million) of taxes on dividends to three shell companies under Browder’s control. The taxes were paid by the companies upon the sale of shares at the beginning of 2006. At the end of 2007 USD 230 million was wired back to the companies. Even though Browder does not deny that he was a de facto owner of the companies (“through which we made all our investments in Russia”) – formally they were subsidiaries of HSBC Management Guernsey Ltd. – Browder claims he had lost control over them (they were “stolen” by Russian criminals) by the time the fraudulent refund was received by the companies.
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes explores the veracity of Browder’s claims. Andrei Nekrasov, the film’s director, started out by believing Browder, as did virtually all mainstream media of the world. At a closer look it turned out, however, that the company theft story was riddled with inconsistencies, and the whistleblower role had been falsely assigned to Magnitsky to reinforce the impression that the companies had been stolen by the people Magntisky had allegedly accused.
Browder’s version of the events has, however, been universally accepted as true and indicative of total corruption and lawlessness Vladimir Putin presides over. As the Magnitsky narrative evolved over the years Browder started to claim that Putin personally had been motivated to target Magnitsky and him, Browder. The Russian state, Browder claims, has been covering up the crime because a part of the stolen 230 million was sent to Putin’s friend, cellist Sergei Roldugin. This is one in the multitude of Browder’s claims that is shown to be baseless in The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes.
The media’s wholesale adoption of a narrative sourced solely by Browder, a businessman with a vested interest in the case, is exceptional. The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes being all but suppressed by those it exposes, Andrei Nekrasov has, nevertheless, extensive experience discussing the case with journalists working for mainstream corporate media, such as Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Foreign Policy. The director concluded that each time there was little interest in the details of the white collar crime at the centre of his investigative film. Instead, the reporters seemed to be concerned with the political and even geopolitical context of the Magnitsky story. Nekrasov’s impression is that the implications of the possibility that Browder’s version of the financial fraud might be false are considered potentially too damaging to the political and media establishment. The mistake cannot be undone, and must be turned into an unassailable truth at any cost.
Browder’s story is at the foundation of the so-called Magitsky Acts, or laws, in a number of countries, that are supposed to punish the alleged torturers and killers of Magnitsky and other human rights violators. The fact that the American, Canadian, British and other governments have put their stamp of approval on Browder’s version of events involving Magnitsky is used to discredit The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes. That is a highly spurious argument, as the evidence of political institutions and governments having been deceived or co-opted by Browder is contained in the film itself.
CREDITS
Director: Andrei Nekrasov
Producer: Torstein Grude
Written by: Andrei Nekrasov and Torstein Grude
Editor: Philipp Gromov
DOP: Tore Vollan, Torstein Grude and Joona Pettersson
Original Music: Karsten Fundal
Original title: The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes
Year: 2016
Length: 152 min, 125 min
Languages: English, Russian, German, French
Production company: Piraya Film.
Co-production: Illume and Wingman Media
Production countries: Norway, Finland, Denmark
Distribution: Piraya Film.
Festival distribution: The Norwegian Film Institute
SUPPORTED BY
The Norwegian Film Institute (Norwegian state film funding body, Oslo)
Filmkraft Rogaland (Norwegian state film funding body with regional base in Rogaland)
The Finnish Film Foundation SES (Finnish state film funding body, Helsinki)
The Nordic Film & TV Fund (Nordic film funding body, Oslo)
Fritt Ord (The Freedom of Expression Foundation, Oslo)
Stiftelsen Matriark (The Matriarch Foundation, Stavanger)
Piraya Film (Producer, Stavanger)
Torstein Grude (Producer, Stavanger)
Andrei Nekrasov (Director, Stavanger)
Hinterland AS (Equipment rental / post production company, Stavanger)
NRK (Norwegian state broadcaster)
YLE (Finnish state broadcaster)
ZDF/Arte (German/French state broadcaster)
SCREENINGS AND AWARDS
2016 Premiere an the European Parliament in Brussels – cancelled due to legal threats by Bill Browder and Marieluise Beck
2016 ARTE broadcast – cancelled due to legal threats by Bill Browder and Marieluise Beck
2016 The Newseum, Washington DC, USA.
2016 The official world premier in Oslo.
2016 The Norwegian Short Film Festival, Grimstad, Norway – cancelled due to legal threats by Bill Browder
2016 Nordisk Panorama Film Festival, Malmö, Sweden
2016 Moscow International Film Festival, Russia
2016 Bergen International Film Festival, Norway
2016 Kapittel Film, Stavanger, Norway
2016 Helsinki International Film Festival – Love & Anarchy, Finland
2017 Eurodok, Oslo, Norway
2017 Tampere Film Festival, Finland
2017 Nordic/Docs, Fredrikstad, Norway
2017 The Norwegian Short Film Festival, Grimstad, Norway
2017 Volksbühne am Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz, Berlin, Germany
2017 International Festival Signes de Nuit, Paris, France
2018 Festival Internacional Signos de la Noche, Tucumán, Argentina
2018 International Festival Signs of the Night, Bangkok, Thailand
2018 Telepolis Salon, Munich, Germany
~
2016 Special Commendation – Prix Europa TV Documentary
2017 Main Award, Student Jury – Festival international Signes de Nuit, Paris
2018 Night Award, Festival Internacional Signos de la Noche – Tucumán, Argentina
2018 The Signs Award, 16th International Festival Signs of the Night, Bangkok, Thailand
“
Why is the U.S. mainstream media so frightened of a documentary that debunks the beloved story of how “lawyer” Sergei Magnitsky uncovered massive Russian government corruption and died as a result? If the documentary is as flawed as its critics claim, why won’t they let it be shown to the American public, then lay out its supposed errors, and use it as a case study of how such fakery works?
“Meanwhile I am beginning to think that we are all just a part of the Browder PR machine (…) Here I will just quote from “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence“: When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Robert Otto, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency; Page 187
Hermitage did not lose control of its companies and was involved in the preparation of the tax refund. I can’t prove Hermitage actually received the 230 million dollars because it operated through figureads and offshore structures, but I can prove that the story of the company theft is false, and false stories are not knowingly told without a reason.
Torstein Grude
Producer, Piraya Film
Deceptive legal letters from Hermitage Capital and Carter-Ruck lead to takedown of The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes from Vimeo. Piraya Film will not be silenced and will provide the film on other platforms soon.
Piraya Film challenges Vimeo’s censorship of The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes
in a legal letter.
The former hedge fund manager, who became rich in Russia, now presents himself as one of the greatest human rights activists and has so far successfully prevented the screening of a revealing film.
As Congress still swoons over the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky narrative, Western political and media leaders refuse to let their people view a documentary that debunks the fable.
A new documentary blows apart the West’s Russia-bashing narrative about the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky. So the response has been to stop the public from seeing the film while calling it Russian “agit-prop”.
It would be disingenuous not to recognise that every speaker here, apart from myself, represents Bill Browder’s version of his Russian activities and Sergei Magnitsky’s role in the affair. And – five minutes is all I am given to present my case.
The bombshell New York Times article about the fateful Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 contained at least one falsehood. We could prove that in any independent probe. Nekrasov wrote a letter to the editor (letters@nytimes.com) in accordance with all NYT guidelines, asking for the falsehood to be corrected. It was left intact, and no reply was received.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 