Pretexts For An Attack On Iran.

(Originally published on Consortium News)

Ray McGovern probes the step-up in U.S. belligerence towards a country posing the same non-existent strategic threat as Iraq.

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

An Iraq-War redux is now in full play, with leading roles played by some of the same protagonists — President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, for example, who says he still thinks attacking Iraq was a good idea. Co-starring is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The New York Times on Tuesday played its accustomed role in stoking the fires, front-paging areport that, at Bolton’s request, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has come up with an updated plan to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East, should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons. The Times headline writer, at least, thought it appropriate to point to echoes from the past: “White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War.”

By midday, Trump had denied the Times report, branding it “fake news.” Keep them guessing, seems to be the name of the game.

Following the Iraq playbook, Bolton and Pompeo are conjuring up dubious intelligence from Israel to “justify” attacking — this time — Iran. (For belligerent Bolton, this was entirely predictable.) All this is clear.

Bolton the Belligerent. (Gage Skidmore via Flickr)

What is not clear, to Americans and foreigners alike, is why Trump would allow Bolton and Pompeo to use the same specious charges — terrorism and nuclear weapons — to provoke war with a country that poses just as much strategic threat to the U.S. as Iraq did — that is to say, none. The corporate media, with a two-decade memory-loss and a distinct pro-Israel bias, offers little help toward understanding.

Before discussing the main, but unspoken-in-polite-circles, impulse behind the present step-up in threats to Iran, let’s clear some underbrush by addressing the two limping-but-still-preferred, ostensible rationales, neither of which can bear close scrutiny:

No. 1: It isn’t because Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. We of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity shot down that canard a year and a half ago. In a Memorandum for President Trump, we said:

“The depiction of Iran as ‘the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism’ is not supported by the facts. While Iran is guilty of having used terrorism as a national policy tool in the past, the Iran of 2017 is not the Iran of 1981. In the early days of the Islamic Republic, Iranian operatives routinely carried out car bombings, kidnappings and assassinations of dissidents and of American citizens. That has not been the case for many years.”

No. 2. It isn’t because Iran is building a nuclear weapon. A November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed any such work. That judgment has been re-affirmed by the Intelligence Community annually since then.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, imposed strict, new, verifiable restrictions on Iranian nuclear-related activities and was agreed to in July 2015 by Iran, the U.S., Russia, China, France, the U.K., Germany and the European Union.

U.S. team on way to JCPOA meeting at UN, New York City, 2016. (State Department)

Even the Trump administration has acknowledged that Iran has been abiding by the agreement’s provisions. Nevertheless, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal on May 8, 2018, four weeks after John Bolton became his national security adviser.

‘We Prefer No Outcome’

Fair WarningWhat follows may come as a shock to those malnourished on the drivel in mainstream media: The “WHY,” quite simply, is Israel. It is impossible to understand U.S. Middle East policy without realizing the overwhelming influence of Israel on it and on opinion makers. (A personal experience drove home how strong the public appetite is for the straight story, after I gave a half-hour video interview to independent videographer Regis Tremblay three years ago. He titled it “The Inside Scoop on the Middle East & Israel,” put it on YouTube and it got an unusually high number of views.)

Syria is an illustrative case in point, since Israel has always sought to secure its position in the Middle East by enlisting U.S. support to curb and dominate its neighbors. An episode I recounted in that interview speaks volumes about Israeli objectives in the region as a whole, not only in Syria. And it includes an uncommonly frank admission/exposition of Israeli objectives straight from the mouths of senior Israeli officials. It is the kind of case-study, empirical approach much to be preferred to indulging in ponderous pronouncements or, worse still, so-called “intelligence assessments.”

It has long been clear that Israeli leaders have powerful incentives to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. This Israeli priority has become crystal clear in many ways. Reporter Jodi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem, had an important article in TheNew York Times on Sept. 6, 2013, in which she addressed Israel’s motivation in a particularly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike against Syria,” noted that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.

Rudoren wrote:

Jodi Rudoren. (Twitter)

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

If this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the carnage in Syria, they seem to believe that deeper U.S. involvement, including military action, is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict especially when Syrian government forces seem to be getting the upper hand. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates it will be.

The fact that Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. And since Iranian military support has not been enough to destroy those challenging Bashar al-Assad, Israel can highlight that in an attempt to humiliate Iran as an ally.

Today the geography has shifted from Syria to Iran: What’s playing out in the Persian Gulf area is a function of the politically-dictated obsequiousness of American presidents to the policies and actions of Israel’s leaders. This bipartisan phenomenon was obvious enough under recent presidents like Clinton and Obama; but under Bush II and Trump, it went on steroids, including a born-again, fundamentalist religious aspect.

One need hardly mention the political power of the Israel lobby and the lucrative campaign donations from the likes of Sheldon Adelson. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding high, at least for the now, Israeli influence is particularly strong in the lead-up to U.S. elections, and Trump has been acquitted of colluding with Russia.

The stars seem aligned for very strong “retaliatory strikes” for terrorist acts blamed on Iran.

Tonkin — er, I Mean Persian Gulf

Over the weekend, four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, were sabotaged near the Strait of Hormuz. Last evening The Wall Street Journal was the first to report an “initial U.S. assessment” that Iran likely was behind the attacks, and quoted a “U.S. official” to the effect that if confirmed, this would inflame military tensions in the Persian Gulf.The attacks came as the U.S. deploys an aircraft carrier, bombers and an antimissile battery to the Gulf — supposedly to deter what the Trump administration said is the possibility of Iranian aggression.

On Tuesday, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, with whom Saudi Arabia has been fighting a bloody war for the past four years, launched a drone attack on a Saudi east-west pipeline that carries crude to the Red Sea. This is not the first such attack; a Houthi spokesman said the attack was a response to Saudi “aggression” and “genocide” in Yemen. The Saudis shut down the pipeline for repair.

Thus the dangers in and around the Strait of Hormuz increase apace with U.S.-Iran recriminations. This, too, is not new.

Tension in the Strait was very much on Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s mind as he prepared to retire on Sept. 30, 2011. Ten days before, he told the Armed Force Press Service of his deep concern over the fact that the U.S. and Iran have had no formal communications since 1979:

“Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran. So we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations.”

Now the potential for an incident has increased markedly. Adm. Mullen was primarily concerned about the various sides — Iran, the U.S., Israel — making hurried decisions with, you guessed it, “unintended consequences.”

With Pompeo and Bolton on the loose, the world may be well advised to worry even more about “intended consequences” from a false flag attack. The Israelis are masters at this. The tactic has been in the U.S. clandestine toolkit for a long time, as well. In recent days, the Pentagon has reported tracking “anomalous naval activity” in the Persian Gulf, including loading small sailing vessels with missiles and other military hardware.

Cheney: Down to the Sea in Boats

In July 2008, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Bush administration officials had held a meeting in the vice president’s office in the wake of a January 2008 incident between Iranian patrol boats and U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. The reported purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to provoke war with Iran.

Hersh wrote:

Seymour Hersh. (Giorgio Montersino via Flickr)

“There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build in our shipyard four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

“And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of, that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.

“Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the [January 2008] incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. Youknow, we’re into it.”

Preparing the (Propaganda) Battlefield

One of Washington’s favorite ways to blacken Iran and its leaders is to blame it for killing U.S. troops in Iraq. Iran was accused, inter alia, of supplying the most lethal improvised explosive devices, but sycophants like Gen. David Petraeus wanted to score points by blaming the Iranians for still more actions.

On April 25, 2008, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” that would provide detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.”

Petraeus’s staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala, Iraq, would be displayed and then destroyed. But there was a small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing that could be credibly linked to Iran.

This embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in Western media – like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash. A fiasco is only a fiasco if folks find out about it. The Iraqis did announce that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims and attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.”

With his windsock full of neoconservative anti-Iran rhetoric, Petreaus, as CIA director, nevertheless persisted — and came up with even more imaginative allegations of Iranian perfidy. Think back, for example, to October 2011 and the outlandish White House spy feature at the time: the Iranian-American-used-car-salesman-Mexican-drug-cartel plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. And hold your nose.

More recently, the Pentagon announced it has upped its estimate of how many U.S. troops Iran killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. The revised death tally would mean that Iran is responsible for 17 percent of all U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Who Will Restrain the ‘Crazies’?

Pompeo stopped off in Brussels on Monday to discuss Iran with EU leaders, skipping what would have been the first day of a two-day trip to Russia. Pompeo did not speak to the news media in Brussels, but European foreign ministers said that they had urged “restraint.”

Ghika: “Downplaying threat.” (Phillip McTaggart/U.S. Army)

British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt told reporters: “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended, really on either side.” British Army Major General Christopher Ghika was rebuked by U.S. Central Command for saying Tuesday: “There has been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria.” Central Command spokesperson Captain Bill Urban said Ghika’s remarks “run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian backed forces in the region.”

Although there is growing resentment at the many serious problems tied to Trump’s pulling the U.S. out of the Iran deal, and there is the EU’s growing pique at heavyweights like Pompeo crashing their gatherings uninvited, I agree with Pepe Escobar’s bottom line, that “it’s politically naïve to believe the Europeans will suddenly grow a backbone.”

There remains a fleeting hope that cooler heads in the U.S. military might summon the courage to talk some sense into Trump, in the process making it clear that they will take orders from neither Pompeo nor from National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the generals and admirals of today are far more likely in the end to salute and “follow orders.”

There is a somewhat less forlorn hope that Russia will give Pompeo a strong warning in Sochi — a shot across the bow, so to speak. The last thing Russia, China, Turkey and other countries want is an attack on Iran. Strategic realities have greatly changed since the two wars on Iraq.

In 1992, still in the afterglow of Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), former Gen. Wesley Clark asked then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz about major lessons to be drawn from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991. Without hesitation, Wolfowitz answered, “We can do these things and the Russians won’t stop us.” That was still true for the second attack on Iraq in 2003.

Paul Wolfowitz, as under secretary of defense for policy,  at right, taking notes during press conference during first Gulf War. (Lietmotiv via Flickr)

But much has changed since then: In 2014, the Russians stopped NATO expansion to include Ukraine, after the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev; and in the years that followed, Moscow thwarted attempts by the U.S., Israel, and others to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

No doubt Russian President Vladimir Putin would like to “stop us” before the Bolton/Pompeo team finds an “Iranian” casus belli. Initial reporting from Sochi, where Pompeo met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday indicates there was no meeting of the minds on Iran. Both Pompeo and Lavrov described their talks as “frank” — diplomat-speak for acrimonious.

Pompeo was probably treated to much stronger warnings in private during the Sochi talks with Lavrov and Putin. Either or both may even have put into play the potent China card, now that Russia and China have a relationship just short of a military alliance — a momentous alteration of what the Soviets used to call the “correlation of forces.”

In my mind’s eye, I can even see Putin warning, “If you attack Iran, you may wish to be prepared for trouble elsewhere, including in the South China Sea. Besides, the strategic balance is quite different from conditions existing each time you attacked Iraq. We strongly advise you not to start hostilities with Iran — under any pretext. If you do, we are ready this time.”

And, of course, Putin could also pick up the phone and simply call Trump.

There is no guarantee, however, that tough talk from Russia could stick an iron rod into the wheels of the juggernaut now rolling downhill to war on Iran. But, failing that kind of strong intervention and disincentive, an attack on Iran seems all but assured. Were we to be advising President Trump today, we VIPS would not alter a word in the recommendation at the very end of the Memorandum for President George W. Bush we sent him on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council earlier that day:

“No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable [as Powell had claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and presidential briefer and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Advertisements

Trump, May, Macron Must Apologize To Syrians.

by Jerry Alatalo

n April 7, 2018 a video of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, a suburb of Syria’s capitol city Damascus, went viral on both corporate and independent media worldwide. Despite attempts by officials from Syria, Russia and other nations to point out the video presented a false scenario, and that no chemical attack whatsoever occurred, U.S. President Donald Trump, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and France’s President Emmanuel Macron agreed on the launch of an illegal over 100-missile attack on Syria.

Fast forward to February 2019 … After the bombshell announcement by a producer at BBC, Riam Dalati, that the Douma hospital video depicted a White Helmets-enabled staged event, the question now becomes one of whether Trump, May and Macron will acknowledge this and issue an apology. It seems impossible to imagine that U.S. President Donald Trump was unaware of the staged event allegation before authorizing the air strikes. The same is to be said of Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, respectively.

Keeping those sentiments in mind, people might pay close attention to the personal manner, wording and style of delivery of the President of the United States in Donald Trump’s world-publicized press announcement of the Syria bombing strikes.

Trump’s statement on Syria air strikes (April 2018):

(Thank you to ABC News (Australia) at YouTube)

*

Maria Zakharova identifies White Helmets (February 13, 2019)

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova noted the BBC chemical attack development in her February 14, 2019 news briefing, reiterating that Russian and Syrian officials had hoped – to no avail/unsuccessfully – to avoid the unnecessary, reckless U.S., U.K., France launch of bombs, by sharing the truth of the issue very shortly after the incident.

Ms. Zakharova noted: “The culmination of this theater of absurd may be a statement by a BBC producer, who confirmed based on his own research that the footage (Douma) had been staged with direct participation of (the) White Helmets.”

BBC Syria Producer Riam Dalati says Douma chemical incident was a staged event:

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)

*

Some believe the illegal April 2018 bombing of Syria by Trump, May and Macron, not authorized by either the U.S. Congress or the United Nations Security Council, had been pre-planned – actually meant to provoke a counter attack from Syria and escalation of offensive military actions to major war.

Fortunately there was no military response from Syria, and a more dangerous and destructive increase in warring, potentially breaking out of the regional to world war dimensions, became averted.

Future history books may record, teach and describe the 2-hour December 20, 2018 meeting at the United Nations as a pivotal, important, world-changing event

On December 19, 2018, Donald Trump went on Twitter and announced that the U.S. military under his orders as Commander-in-Chief were leaving Syria immediately. For whatever reasons, after close to (2) months since Trump’s surprise announcement, the idea of American soldiers leaving Syria has become abandoned, and reportedly – instead of complete withdrawal of forces – another 1,000 U.S. soldiers have moved/located into Syria.

Some believe Trump’s December 19 “announcement” was a form of psychological warfare operation to attract total world media attention toward his action – and away from the December 20, 2018 United Nations meeting which presented a shocking range of crimes committed by the so-called humanitarian group, the White Helmets.

Some might find it more than coincidental that the White Helmets were behind the staging and filming of the false April 2018 Douma chemical attack, and that Trump’s Syria announcement came within 24 hours of a United Nations meeting devastating to the Oscar-winning reputation of the White Helmets.

With the always highly anticipated Academy Awards just around the corner, – and given an Oscar became awarded to a documentary which positioned the White Helmets as heroes – it might be very interesting to see how these developments become received and/or responded to by top Hollywood officials running the yearly event … bigger than the Superbowl in viewership, seen by billions of people around the Earth.

In another equally troubling and directly related event, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted – then deleted within hours – a message on Twitter which included an admission or very strong implication that war against Iran has been planned.

Netanyahu deletes Twitter post on “war with Iran”:

It seems an eminent, perfectly reasonable expectation by the people of America, Britain and France of an imminent and sincere apology with regard to the April 2018 bombing of Syria coming from their highest elected officials: Trump, May and Macron. Their statements of apology, or, conversely, failure to adequately address the tremendously important matter, will assuredly go a long way towards defining the moral character of the leaders, – especially and precisely as perceived by their nations’ citizens now aware of these developments. As for Benjamin Netanyahu … The people of Israel are waiting for an honest explanation, as well.

Peace.

***

Bill Browder Challenged In European Parliament.

by Jerry Alatalo

William Browder’s 7-hour deposition on April 15, 2015 uncovered many disturbing facts about his narrative of events as they relate to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for whom the Magnitsky Act was named.

he long-lasting, seemingly impenetrable, indestructible scandal of hedge fund tax cheat Bill Browder – and Magnitsky Act economic warfare legislation he’s spearheading globally – may have suffered a fatal wound. Appearing before a European Union (EU) committee in recent days, Bill Browder was one of the panelists chosen to speak to the politicians about potential Magnitsky laws becoming written and implemented for the entire European Union.

An EU parliament member from France, Nicolas Bay, pushed Browder on documentary filmmaker and director Andrei Nekrasov’s “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”, which portrays the director’s journey from first believing Browder’s story of what happened to Browder’s “lawyer” (actually, his accountant) Sergei Magnitsky – to understanding Browder is a historic-magnitude fraud.

Mr. Bay suggested there is an unresolved controversy with regard to Browder’s narrative powerfully raised in Nekrasov’s highly-censored/blacklisted documentary, and pushed Browder for an explanation of why he seems intentionally avoiding a debate with Nekrasov. Tellingly Browder, – in what is likely a preconceived or prepared, well-thought-out response anticipated before the EU discussion should “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” and/or Nekrasov have become brought up – answers Mr. Bay with allegations of Bay’s “Russian involvement” and claims that Nekrasov put out a slander film on Browder for money.

Here are comments on the video of the EU discussion, the portion featuring Browder’s rare public confrontation engagement with May, posted on YouTube at ‘Nicholas Wilson’ channel:

“Guy acts like he’s above it all, right after admitting he went out of his way to prevent another man’s film being shown anywhere in the world. “Putin” and “Russia” are only a smear among those in power. Majority of the public don’t care. The Skripal story is a joke. The dead Russian journalist turned out to be a Ukrainian lie. Russia accused of influencing US election turned out to be an insignificant number of memes.

“Meanwhile, US declares its own un-elected puppet leader of Venezuela. France encourages protests in Venezuela while shooting, gassing and finding ways to prevent its own. And the U.K. demands an immediate election while denying one to its own people despite disaster after disaster. These, bankers, liars and hypocrites need to be exposed and never forgotten until they’re in prison for their crimes which have killed people.”

(Reply) “Amen.”

*

“Thanks for posting this. Con-man Bill Browder’s engaged in scams since, at least, the 1990s when under the wing of Edmond Safra. Safra’s Republic National Bank of New York (RNBoNY) and Beny Steinmetz bankrolled Hermitage in Moscow – with Browder up-front – in 1996. Following Safra’s death in Monaco in 1999, RNBoNY’s absorbed by HSBC. The Magnitsky hoax is a geopolitical scam – undone by the source documents (corporate, court, police+ filings). “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”, the documentary of Andrei Nekrasov and Norway’s Oscar-nominated Piraya Film AS is a brilliant expose of Browder and reveals how this scam has been furthered by politicians, bureaucrats, press+ in Europe and America. Great to see Browder, and his hoax, is unraveling.”

*

“Thanks for the Browder background J’accuse. It really is a scam of MONUMENTAL proportions; the fact that the mainstream is studiously ignoring it just showcases how bankrupt the system is.”

(Reply) “This truly is a failure of the press. Con-men do what they do. Lying comes naturally to Browder and co. What’s missing is a functioning media to act as check-and-balance. I’ve been investigating white collar / organized crime since the 1980s (see https://jaccuse.news ). The networks being used in this current hoax pre-date con-man Browder – and they’ll post-date him. I’m hopeful this year we’ll see the truth exposed to enough of a global audience that Browder himself will lose his value to the criminal and political networks for which he’s fronting at present. With even more exposure, the corrupt enterprise itself may suffer greater structural dismantling. The world will be a better, safer, place with each step to shut down this operation.’

*

“Thanks for putting this on line, so everyone can hear his vile accusations with zero evidence.”

*

“Creepy Bill Browder is starting to come unhinged. In the last few days, he told Danske bank that the French had reopened an investigation, when they had not. Danske postponed a bond sale and the markets were sent into a spin. Then, just to make himself more popular, he accused members of the British House of Lords of money laundering, which while probably true, the fact that his bank of choice HSBC, settled a tax debt from one of Browder’s companies for tens of millions of dollars. Now this rant, its possible he is going to crash and burn, in which case it won’t be Putin who pays him a visit, but he might get Novichoked, and serve a purpose if Brexit falls apart.”

*

“Who is asking Browder the question? N Bey???? Trying to find his name…”

(Reply) “French Parliamentarian Monsieur Nicolas Bay, Député européen | Co-président du @GroupeENL | Président du groupe Rassemblement National au Conseil régional de Normandie.”

*

“Great to have a European Parliament member ask this crook a question. You can see that he is unable and unwilling to ‘engage’ – anyone who has seen the film sees very clearly how Nekrasov at first thought Browder was speaking the truth, and he slowly uncovers, to his own dismay, how Browder is a liar, misrepresents facts, and organized a major heist against the Russian state. Browder was supported here by Guy Verhofstadt, a guy who in this way showed his colors fully as well as totally owned by money-laundering banks such as HSBC.”

*

To watch the shocking, extraordinary film “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” by Andrei Nekrasov, people can purchase and download at MagnitskyAct.com.

How much longer can the enormously important, global-consequence Bill Browder-Magnitsky Act scandal remain concealed and survive?

(Thank you to Nicholas Wilson at YouTube)

 

Skullduggery

When will the immeasurably important, near universally censored, unprecedented-in-magnitude Bill Browder-Magnitsky Act scandal finally – and rightly – crash, burn and become tossed away to where it belongs – on the ash heap of history?

The Naked Hedgie

Today I break my rule to only post on my own articles at this blog. The following article by a person who preferred to remain anonymous struck me as such a disturbingly powerful punch in the gut, I decided to post it here amongst my scribblings. A different style, different imagination… stuff that makes the writer in me slightly jelaous… It is a first-person account written fom the viewpoint of Bill Browder, the protagonist of my book “Grand Deception” (which was twice stricken from Amazon by Bill Browder’s lawyers). Here goes:

View original post 1,843 more words