Panama Papers

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.

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 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.

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.

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

Perhaps you could just add that here, or here.

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.

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

https://youtu.be/18A8SPvH0YE

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

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...

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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.