Panama Papers

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Panama Leaks Should Be Released in Full - WikiLeaks

https://youtu.be/zrKzKpBbmro

 

US States Often More Attractive Tax Havens Than Panama

https://youtu.be/1KzqRHwcXXw

 

Some has even suggested that the intent is to chase the tax haven crowd to the US competition.

Nifty idea to to style a propaganda release as a 'leak' too..

NDPP

'Panama Is New Switzerland, US Preparing For Big Financial Crisis'

https://youtu.be/FrP8j1jGoNQ

Journalist and author Ernst Wolf talks to RT on Panama Papers

josh

A federal prosecutor in Argentina opened an investigation Thursday into President Mauricio Macri's financial dealings via two offshore firms revealed in the so-called Panama Papers leaks.

Prosecutor Federico Delgado said he had asked a judge to request information from the national tax authority and anti-corruption office to determine whether Macri "omitted, with malicious intent, to complete his sworn declaration" of assets, a requirement for Argentine public officials. 

. . . .

The pro-business president has launched a flurry of free-market reforms since taking office in December, seeking to revive a slowing economy. 

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/199031.aspx 

 

Because of the last sentence, don't expect the corporate media to pick up on this, as they would if it were a left president.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

votd and others have drawn attention (esp see my information warfare thread) to the inconsistency here. Why such apparent allies of the US regime if this truly is US-sponsored information warfare? But let's put some political aspects together with economic ones.

The economics of getting depositers to move their ill-gotten gains to US financial institutions, rather than foreign ones, dovetails well with a predicted financial tsunami forthcoming. So, in that sense, who cares? At long as the big US fish don't get side-swiped (and they haven't, have they?). target your enemies (the claims about the Putin bogeyman on the front page, leading this story, across the globe in all the lickspittle MSM, including Canada stands out; however, notice also the Syrian President, Chinese figures, ...) and the implied threat of exposure can make the most honest depositer scramble to move their assets to Uncle Sam's vaults.

The financial tsunami. What is it? Well, there is the whole issue of the ponzi-like character of the financialization of the global economy. The explosion of non productive assets, of the sort that led to the 2008 crisis. But also there is the counter weight of the BRICS member states, a basket of currencies no longer dependent on the US dollar, and such a tsunami seems plausible. When the US can no longer dominate the global economy, when its dollar is just one of several currencies, when it's military can no longer dictate to the world (Syria and Ukraine being very important recent examples) and its political elites unable, or unwilling, to accep this sea change....

 

josh

David Cameron has admitted that he profited from his late father's offshore investment fund, which was revealed in the Panama Papers as having avoided paying tax in the UK.

The prime minister sold his stake in the Blairmore fund for more than £30,000 in 2010, just four months before entering Downing Street. 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-prof...

 

NorthReport

Some Media had this story for a whole year before its release which is quite remarkable in itself.

I wonder if this is going to have an impact of the 2016 US elections as I see some extremists are now trying to link Clinton to the Kremlin

The looming mystery behind the Panama Papers: How did the largest document leak in history even happen?

After similar coups by WikiLeaks and others, we had an idea of who pulled the trigger, and why. Not this time

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/07/the_looming_mystery_behind_the_panama_pa...

Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin ConnectionJohn and Tony Podesta aren’t fooling anyone

http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connec...



ikosmos ikosmos's picture

NorthReport wrote:
Some Media had this story for a whole year before its release which is quite remarkable in itself.

Agreed. That's some astonishing gate-keeping.

 

NorthReport

Author of above salon article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcy_Wheeler

6079_Smith_W

Also, fine details like sask lawyer Tony merchant seems seems a little over the top if this is all a plot to get Putin. 

Besides, I have been in transit and have had spotty news access. while I have seen headlines about Iceland, David Cameron and Tony merchant, this is the first mention I have seen of Putin.

But maybe I am missing something and this really is all not about him.

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Also, fine details like sask lawyer Tony merchant seems seems a little over the top if this is all a plot to get Putin. 

Besides, I have been in transit and have had spotty news access. while I have seen headlines about Iceland, David Cameron and Tony merchant, this is the first mention I have seen of Putin.

But maybe I am missing something and this really is all not about him.

Ah, but it's always about him!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

This undeniable fact has been meticulously and objectively detailed here, and here.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The idea that the MSM in Western democracies vilify leaders they are opposed to should be in the conspiracy thread. Who could believe such a thing about our free press? I know that all the coverage I see about Putin is respectful and never sensational or biased.  The same is true for the coverage of Bashar al-Assad and Khaled Mashal and Hassan Rouhani.  The glowing bios done on all those leaders is a credit to our Western media.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Perhaps you could just add that here, or here.

NorthReport
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I dunno if the usual suspects are going to claim that, now that the screaming headlines clearly focussing on the Russian President of the first days have passed, there wasn't much focus on Putin by the Western MSM but, frankly, debunking such lies is a waste of time. The evidence is overwhelming.

Of course there is a trajectory to the story. And, with the deliberate release of "leaks" in dribs and drabs, those releasing the information can really manage the story. Which they seem to be doing pretty well.

The pathological Russophobia/Putinphobia is actually so idiotic that it's comical.

Quote:
Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov really stirred things up last week when he alleged that certain foreign interests were trying to smear Vladimir Putin. Media anticipation went into overdrive and speculation mounted that some kind of massive revelation was imminent.

The fact that Putin has been accused of all kinds of elaborate wrong-doing in the past only served to whet appetites even more. Such as, earlier this year, when Britain’s most popular newspaper, The Sun, reported that he was the richest man in the world. Back in 2012, London’s state-controlled BBC had him building a palace on the Black Sea. Indeed, three years later, the Daily Express newspaper valued the property at $1 billion.

Not to be outdone, The Daily Telegraph’s Roland Oliphant had him sailing around in a $35 million yacht in January. Meanwhile, a few week’s earlier, the Daily Mail wrote that Putin owned a $23 million villa near Marbella, Spain, where he cultivated “one of the world’s most expensive wines.” Long-term Marbella resident, Dolph Lundgren, could have told Putin a few things about Russian stereotypes. He played Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

While the British media is uniquely talented when it comes to reporting complete poppycock, the Americans do try to keep up. Only last week, the likes of Vanity Fair, US Weekly and The Daily Beast had the Russian President dating Wendi Deng. If, like me (and I suspect Putin himself), the only Deng you immediately recognise is Deng Xiaoping, you’ll be delighted to learn that Wendi is the ex spouse of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns The Sun, thus squaring the circle somewhat.

Here's the amusing part. Useful idiots pay attention.

Quote:
To be fair, this light-hearted balderdash made a change from the usual US tabloid coverage of Russian affairs. You can be fairly sure that invented stories of liaisons with minor celebrities probably even amuse the Kremlin. They certainly should go down better than when Newsweek (July, 2015) had Putin invading the Baltic States or The Daily Beast asserted that Russia was “giving ISIS an air force.”  That happened in October last, according to their Russia Editor, who has apparently never actually been to Russia.

Anyway, given previous smears against Putin, the Moscow media pool expected something really massive this time. One colleague suggested that maybe the CIA were about to prove the President immortal? He was crestfallen when I told him that the topic has already been covered. The Daily Telegraph attempted to prove it last December Proving that stupidity is not confined to only one side of the Atlantic, the New York Post followed up. They went a step further by trying to establish a link to Count Dracula.

 

It doesn't matter how insane the claim is. Putin did it.

Quote:
All Hat; No Cattle

So, can you imagine how much of an anticlimax Monday’s Guardian front page was? The headline, “Revealed: the $2 billion trail that leads to Vladimir Putin” excited people all over the world. But for Russia watchers, it was different. Bearing in mind that the BBC claimed only three months ago that Putin was worth $200 billion, $2 billion seemed like pocket change. Then we read the article and realised that Putin wasn’t actually named at all in the Panama Papers.

In conclusion then ...

Quote:
Ultimately, these endless attempts to smear Putin are counterproductive to Western interests. Firstly, they’ve become so preposterous that even casual consumers of media can see through the baloney at this point.

[but not a sizable chunk of babble geniuses]

More importantly, they have little impact inside Russia. After the 90’s, when they lived in what amounted to a gangster state, Russians still assume that public figures are inclined to steal. That’s not to suggest that Putin has done so. Indeed, there is no reason for Putin to plunder. As President, he has the resources of the Russian state at his fingertips. He doesn’t need actual money to live well. The Russian system is based on power, not money. Russians know that.

Many, so-called, Russia experts in the West can’t seem to grasp the concept. Until they do, we’re likely to see more and more, increasingly outrageous, attempts to defame Putin. As Russians largely resent outside interference in their internal affairs, the net result of these smears will probably be increased support for the President.

Great. More support for a conservative. That's just what's needed. uh huh.

Kremlin and the Panama Papers: Lots of Icing But No Cake.

swallow swallow's picture

Honestly, I don't care what the Guardian says about Putin that much. I do think the information exposed here about some Western leaders is worth following up. Would be nice to see more leaders go the way of Iceland's. Too bad the pro-Kremlin spin machine has decided to fight that, and work instead to preserve the likes of Cameron and Petroshenko. 

NorthReport
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

We should be demanding that all of the records be made publicly available - just like Wikileaks

 Lacking that, we should have all the banking records for those doing the gate-keeping: all the Toronto Star staff involved and all the CBC staff involved. And what their dog shat out yesterday. And what they ate for breakfast. 

And the same in every other country that's doing this gate-keeping.

 

NDPP

Panama Papers: US May Use Leaks To Widen Sanctions List Against Russia

https://youtu.be/18A8SPvH0YE

 

NorthReport
NDPP

CrossTalk on Panama Papers (A hack NOT a 'leak')

https://youtu.be/TWdqbhl3upE

"The so-called Panama Papers are sold to us as a vast leak chronicling the financial misdeeds of the rich and powerful. But it this really the case? One interpretation of the Panama Papers is the West targeting its enemies."

Pepe Escobar, Mitch Feirstein, Alexander Mercouris

 

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The idea that the MSM in Western democracies vilify leaders they are opposed to should be in the conspiracy thread. Who could believe such a thing about our free press? I know that all the coverage I see about Putin is respectful and never sensational or biased.  The same is true for the coverage of Bashar al-Assad and Khaled Mashal and Hassan Rouhani.  The glowing bios done on all those leaders is a credit to our Western media.

I for one would certainly not deny that the western MSM villifies certain world leaders, nor that they might use info from the Panama Leaks to do so.

But ikosmos argument goes well beyond that. He's essentially saying that Obama made a call to George Soros, asking him to organize a hack into a Panamanian law firm with the purpose of stealing financial info on American enemies. Then, having carried out the hack through a front-group of journalists, the first thing they leaked was a trove of documents that were embarrassing to people in Putin's circle, while at the same time causing major political headaches for a couple of people who are American allies, the latter just to make the whole enterprise look neutral.

The above is what you're signing on for if you defend ikosmos' theories. It's not simply a case of "The western media is spinning some of this to amplify the dirt on Putin beyond what is reasonable."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Ok, to summarize what we could call some hybrid warfare or psyops.  

We have an NSA hack of a Panamanian law firm. (The firm has confirmed they were hacked. Not a leak.) A year passes, without a single leak of the initial hack. Not one. Remarkable gate-keeping by people who would, you would think, have some sense of the public interest here. No chance of that. Tha absurdity of this alone should alert the bullshit detectors of normally rational people. The gate-keepers include the CBC and the Toronto Star, by the way.

And this question of the trustworthiness of these gate-keepers is still an open question, brushed under the rug, deflected by other questions. A petition to make all the records public - like a true Wikileak and not this bullshit hack - is still possible. 

Anyway, an entire year passes, during which time 300 international journalists, in cahoots with the Soros Foundation and other fronts for the US government, vet the terabytes of information. These are corporate journalists. Not rabble.ca. No chance of that. They finally release the "leaks". I mean hacks, dressed up as leaks.

With me so far?

The hacks are released to enormous fanfare. The cherry picking begins. From the Jerusalem Post to the NY Times to the famously yellow press in the UK to Canada, front and center in the initial story is how the Russian President this, the Russian President that, 2 billion here, 2 billion there, etc. Problem is ... in the 11 million documents and terabytes of information Putin isn't mentioned once. Not once. Got that, geniuses? But of course, there's always guilt by association...

The next day, the focus widens, it includes other enemies of the USA, China in particular, Bashar al-Assad in Syria (who recently embarrassed the USA badly) - an obvious laundry list of enemies, many of whom are already charged/convicted of financial crimes (It was even admitted that the first cherry picks/searches were of people already on US sanction lists. Truly breath-taking pro-US boot licking of the highest calibre),   disposable "friends" (such as the Icelandic PM - the only country that jailed bankers for their nefarious activities around the 2008 financial crisis and meltdown), and tadpoles. Enemies and friends that don't matter. 

The Putin story fails almost immediately. The story was too manipulated. There was zero evidence. They can't spin something out of ... nothing. And the citizenry is already way more interested in their own loutish politicians than the other guy over there. Critical Russia observers point out the obvious (to them); it's power, not money, that runs the corruption in that country. Our bad guy Putin is in power; that's all he needs. To borrow a phrase, he doesn't need no stinking Panamanian bank accounts to hide money. Nor do his cello playing buddies. Blecch.

By the 3rd day the story is clearly out of control. The Putin angle is a misfire. Other politicians, hiding their ill-gotten gains in hidden bank acounts are outed. They are swept along in the rising storm. These others, however, to a degree, legitimize the initial targets.

The cherry picking continues. Still no significant Americans. Apparently, no Americans have foreign bank accounts. Pure as driven snow. Problem is, even the obsequious US media is asking questions. The goal posts keep moving.

ETA: And we discover that the US and its puppet regime in Panama (remember 1989 and the invasion?) have a "trade" agreement which means, basically, that you can't take a dump in Panama without the US knowing about it. Large holders would, of course, know this very well. And would not be caught with their financial pants down today... Oh yeah, and Bloomberg pointed out, last January, that the US itself is a much preferred destination for ... secret bank accounts. Too bad if you didn't get the memo, small fry...

So we also see that for both political reasons (keep the sanctions regime going - esp Russia, Syria et al) and for economic reasons (a coming financial tsunami sees the US wanting US (and other) assets in US banks where, in addition to benefitting from the business, they get to keep their eyes on all that wealth...) the US has an interest in bringing these assets under US jurisdiction. Scaring the beejesus out of (say) Panamanian offshore account investors could just do the trick. Not really "blackmail" in the traditional sense - more like a nudge in the "right" direction. Those with money are notoriously conservative and don't need much of a hint to protect their $. Capisce?

And no one is asking why the gate-keepers get to decide what gets released. And what doesn't get released.

I would much rather have rabble.ca or alt media decide what information gets released than some shit bag corporate journalists at the Star and the CBC.  Too f***ing bad if they are your friends. 

..................................................

eta: Oh yeah, almost forgot. I'm the stupid one. conspiracy theorist. Putin sycophant. So this is all just nonsense that can safely be ignored...

NorthReport

Such a giant Western conspiracy that they forget to let the Western leaders know about it.LaughingLaughingLaughing

  leadershttp://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/david-cameron-panama-papers-...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

The above is what you're signing on for if you defend ikosmos' theories. It's not simply a case of "The western media is spinning some of this to amplify the dirt on Putin beyond what is reasonable."

Where in my post did I even mention ikosmos.

I was poking fun at the pile on because he goes over the top about a real issue. The idea that the MSM Western media provides more unbiased coverage than the Russian media is absurd IMO. I read them both to find the nuggets of facts that might lead one to a real understanding of a story. To take the Guardian at face value is naive but not as naive as taking the New York based media at face value.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/14mx403.jpg[/IMG]

If the goal of Empire was to shame Putin out of office then I'd call this a mulligan.

NorthReport
bekayne

Mr. Magoo wrote:

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/14mx403.jpg[/IMG]

If the goal of Empire was to shame Putin out of office then I'd call this a mulligan.

It's all going according to plan!

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/camerons-ratings-now-lower-corbyns/

bekayne

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/david-cameron-...

People are bound to guard their wealth as best they can within the law. But this law is an ass. Cameron may be innocent as a taxpayer. He is guilty as a legislator.

bekayne

Steve Bell cartoon

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

The above is what you're signing on for if you defend ikosmos' theories. It's not simply a case of "The western media is spinning some of this to amplify the dirt on Putin beyond what is reasonable."

Where in my post did I even mention ikosmos.

I was poking fun at the pile on because he goes over the top about a real issue. The idea that the MSM Western media provides more unbiased coverage than the Russian media is absurd IMO. I read them both to find the nuggets of facts that might lead one to a real understanding of a story. To take the Guardian at face value is naive but not as naive as taking the New York based media at face value.

 

Well, the first sentence of ypur second paragraph would seem to indicate that you were talking ABOUT iskosmos, or at least the reaction he gets.

As for believing the Guardian Vs. the New York media, well, according to ikosmos, the Guardian is the biggest offendor in all this, since they were the ones putting the biggest anti-Putin spin on the leaks. So I think ikosmos would say that the Guardian is very much part of what you mean by "New York based media".

Are you sure you didn't mean OFF-Guardian, the anti-Guardian website? They would be the group outside the "western media" contingent that ikosoms has been arguing against.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/14mx403.jpg[/IMG]

If the goal of Empire was to shame Putin out of office then I'd call this a mulligan.

And the latest Helpless Old Lady running from the Soros-commanded yanqui bombers...

"Argentine President Mauricio Macri has pledged to assert his innocence when he appears before a federal prosecutor on Friday to explain his finances.

An investigation began on Thursday after it transpired Mr Macri was mentioned in the Panama Papers, leaked files of law firm Mossack Fonseca."

Wikipedia describes his foreign-policy as...

"During his government, Macri wants to strengthen ties with Brazil and the Southern Cone, looking away from the Bolivarian axis and claim for political prisoners in Venezuela. It will also promote the repeal of the agreement with Iran and work for a rapprochement with the United States and Europe.[79] He has also worked to strengthen relations with Israel.[80][81]"

So, pro-American, pro-Israel, anti-Iran, anti-Chavez. Yeah, pretty clear why the Americans would have this guy in their sights.

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35991155]link[/url]

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
Are you sure you didn't mean OFF-Guardian, the anti-Guardian website? They would be the group outside the "western media" contingent that ikosoms has been arguing against.

I can't believe I'm that unclear. The off-Guardian has been a great source of satirical and critical coverage of the over-the-top Russophobia and Putinphobia eminating from the gutter British press in a very loud and unified chorus. The Guardian has some historical legitimacy as a liberal or left paper, and I still read some of it, but on Russia it is one of the most egregiously biased publications around. The off-Guardian has been having a field day mocking the stupidity of the Guardian on this.

Where did I critique the off-Guardian anyway? Or is this just a typo?

voice of the damned

I think yiu've misunderstood. I didn't mean you had critiqued the Off-Guardian. I meant that Kropotkin might have confused the Guradian with the Off-Guardian, since he implied that "the Guardian" was more trustworthy than the "New York Based press". Whereas, at least going by what you have said here, the Guardian is pretty much in the same league as "the New York Based Press".

I guess I could be wrong, and Kropotkin thought he had some reason to proclaim the superiority of the Manchester Guardian over the New York Based Press. But that wouldn't really fit into the context of the discussion so far.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
... what you have said here, the Guardian is pretty much in the same league as "the New York Based Press".

On Russia IMHO, yes. On other issues, I still read it (education, culture, ...). It's also noteworthy that, e.g., Julian Assange has written about how The Guardian essentially abandoned Edward Snowden after using him. I think it's fair to say they have discredited themselves.

The British press really is horribly boot-licking towards US policy. Think Soviet state media. Maybe worse than Canada. And the latter is nauseously pro-US in the main. The biggest criticism of the US in Canadian MSM seems to be the annoying liberal animal droppings that somehow "we're better" than the US, which conveniently absolves Canada of criticism. As if.

Yves Engler and others have done a really magnificent job of exposing the "ugly Canadian" to the light of day. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.

voice of the damned

Ah, I see the reason for your confusion...

"They would be the group outside the "western media" contingent that ikosoms has been arguing against."

I meant you've been arguing against the western media contingent, not the Off-Guardian. Sorry for the confusion.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess I could be wrong, and Kropotkin thought he had some reason to proclaim the superiority of the Manchester Guardian over the New York Based Press. But that wouldn't really fit into the context of the discussion so far.

Quote:

To take the Guardian at face value is naive but not as naive as taking the New York based media at face value.

Do you really think I was proclaiming that either of them were particularly good? I said one was bad and the other was worse. Not one was good and the other was superior.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess I could be wrong, and Kropotkin thought he had some reason to proclaim the superiority of the Manchester Guardian over the New York Based Press. But that wouldn't really fit into the context of the discussion so far.

Quote:

To take the Guardian at face value is naive but not as naive as taking the New York based media at face value.

Do you really think I was proclaiming that either of them were particularly good? I said one was bad and the other was worse. Not one was good and the other was superior.

Okay, so you meant the actuaL Guardian, not the Off-Guardian? Fair enough, but it just seemed like an odd choice of an example of something "better than the New York press", in a post that was effectively defending ikosmos against the "pile on". Since ikosmos' commentary on the Guardian(at least as it realtes to Russian and the Panama leaks) has been entirely and uncompromisinly negative.

He really does seem to consider it the worst example of anti-Putinism, not "the least bad of a had lot".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I was referring to the papers coverage in total not just the Russiaphobia. Yellow journalism was not invented by the Americans but they seem to have a bent for it. Every country in the cross hairs of American imperialism get that treatment at least since the days of the Hearst newspaper empire.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
He really does seem to consider it the worst example of anti-Putinism, not "the least bad of a had lot".

Ok, as long as we bear in mind that we're splitting hairs to some degree ... the worst (and most amusing sometimes, as in laughably stupid) are the US State Department Briefings, which are a kind of Wonderland without Alice, but, yeah, The Guardian is right up there, IMHO, on Russia generally. 

Don't forget that The Guardian carries a certain amount of credibility, still, among progressives. So when they claim something it gets more traction than, say, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, etc. (in the UK) or the NY Times, WS Journal, or Washington Post among such people. 

30 years ago I couldn't wait to read The (Manchester) Guardian along with English-language translations of Le Monde Diplomatique. How times have changed.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Panama Papers: Act now. Don't wait for another crisisThomas Piketty

Financial secrecy represents a huge threat to the fragile global system, and we won’t solve the problem by politely asking tax havens to stop behaving badly

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/09/panama-papers-tax-h...

 

NorthReport
voice of the damned

They neglected to mention the ROK, where the son of Roh Tae Woo(president in the late 80s/early 90s, right-wing) was revealed as having off-shore assets.

http://tinyurl.com/h3k39w9

NorthReport

When did the documents concerning David Cameron’s father’s offshore investment fund come to light?

We knew about that early on too. I was keen to get Cameron into the story to head off criticism from the Kremlin that we were focusing on Russia. What had happened was that we put the questions into the Kremlin and the associates of Putin a week in advance of publication and instead of answering them they held a press conference denouncing us and saying it was all a plot. I think Putin thought it was all about him, so we thought we’re going to wait and show it’s not just about him, it’s about everyone.

 

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/panama-papers-icij-journalism-investigation-fina...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Sometimes an apple is just an apple. 

Not sure which is worse here, the conspiracy theorists or the Liberals trying to fuckover the Social Democrats. 

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the German newspaper that first obtained the documents, said the records include copies of the passports of 200 Americans and about 3,500 shareholders in offshore companies have listed addresses in the U.S. That's a tiny fraction of the more than 250,000 companies Mossack Fonseca has set up for clients in four decades of business.

One reason for the dearth of American clients may be because such companies can be easily created in U.S. states such as Wyoming, Delaware and Nevada, attracting less attention than they might in Panama, a country with a reputation for shady financial deals and money laundering.

 

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/why-are-so-few-americans-named-in-the-pan...

contrarianna

NorthReport wrote:

....

Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin ConnectionJohn and Tony Podesta aren’t fooling anyone

http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connec...


Ah yess, the Clinton/Kremlin conspiracy.

By noted pundit John Schindler-- no one can accuse this NSA fabricator of lack of "openess" or a "limited hangout":

Quote:
Snowden critic resigns Naval War College after online penis photo flap
"I had a great time there but it's time to move on," professor says on Twitter.
by David Kravets - Aug 11, 2014 6:36pm PDT
...
A former National Security Agency analyst who was part of a task force that believed (sic) Saddam Hussein maintained weapons of mass destruction, Schindler was employed by the college since 2005....

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/snowden-critic-resigns-naval-...

And...

Quote:
How Surveillance-State Insiders Try to Discredit NSA Critics

....So to sum up: A former NSA employee and U.S. Naval War College professor insists that journalists are sensationalists too lazy to back up their assertions with reporting ... and then he breezily accuses two Americans of a capital crime, implies without evidence that Greenwald has been motivated to report on the Snowden leaks for love of money... and alleges without evidence that half the Snowden operation was orchestrated by Russian authorities. As it turns out, knowledgeable NSA insiders with Ph.D.s and fancy institutional affiliations are every bit as capable of sensationalism and trafficking in evidence-free conspiracy theories as the least responsible members of the press....

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/how-surveillance-sta...

In short, those who shout "conspiracy theory!" shouldn't wear tinfoil.

Pages