Saturday, April 9, 2016

The not completely crazy theory that Russia leaked the Panama Papers???

I had sworn off of this leak. It looked too contrived. Too well timed, in order to distract from the serious situation, the flare up of hostilities in Nagorno Kharabak .Nagorno Karabakh or Why I'm ignoring the Panama Papers.
And  also, too much like the usual smear Putin, without evidence, type of propaganda I’ve read time and time again.

So, you’re asking why? Why are you writing about the Panama papers, at all, if that’s the way you feel about their release?

Let me tell you it all came down to this WP article- Headline above, sans question marks.

This Washington Post article gives credibility to a theory that is not credible. And that's why WaPo published it. And that's why I'm finally writing about the Panama papers

Russian cellist and St. Petersburg House of Music Director Sergei Roldugin, left, and then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visit the St. Petersburg House of Music in St. Petersburg, Russia.

WaPo: ‘On the face of it, the Panama Papers don't look good for Russia”

Perhaps “on the face of it” it didn’t look good for Russia?- But beneath that thin veneer, the Panama papers didn’t appear to have much of anything to do with Russia. Or Vladimir Putin.
Of course, you would never know that considering the media presentation. Who among us missed the multitude of headlines such as Forbes: Putin Caught In Huge Panama Papers Scandal . Or how about?  'Panama Papers' Allegations on Putin Only Scratch Surface, Russians Say

Within a few days it turned out this was all much ado about nothing. Which is pretty typical of propaganda?

What to do when no one is believing that which is supposed to be believed?

Putin is corrupt?
Putin hides his money?
Putin this and Putin that?
When plan A fails you move to Plan B, of course! And what’s Plan B?
Blame Putin for the release of leaked Panama papers, of course!
Cause if you can’t smear Russia/Putin with one meme, you just switch it up a little.
And that’s what’s going on-

WaPo: In short, the theory says that Moscow isn't a victim of a Panama Papers plot. Instead, perhaps it is the Russians who are behind the leak”

Plan A:  Putin, Panama Papers- Criminal (hiding money)
Plan B:  Putin, Panama Papers, still a criminal (cyber crime)
The whole Panama papers leak goes from distraction to absurdity. Washington Post and Brookings present quite a conspiracy theory for their readers...

When is a conspiracy theory (negative association) not a conspiracy theory?

When it’s written by someone from Brookings Institute. Then it is “conspirology” I kid you not!
(I'll get to the conspirology part later)

 WaPo: “Okay, it sounds far-fetched, but this particular idea is especially noteworthy because of who has advanced it: Clifford Gaddy, an economist who works with the Brookings Institution”

Appeal to authority- we should consider this conspiracy theory because Clifford Gaddy, economist, works with Brookings- Appeal to authority. You said that because an authority thinks or writes something, it must therefore be true.

Appeal to authority

WaPo breaks Gaddy’s theory down to 4 main points

1- It was a hacker backed by the Russian government who emailed the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung to offer the leak in early 2015

What evidence does Gaddy and WaPo offer for this claim? None

"Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca."

No talk about hacking from them.... Maybe? But, maybe not?

2: ‘There's deliberately little information within the Panama Papers that harms Putin”

How does WaPo know there is deliberately little information on Putin- Deliberately?
He can’t know that! So why use the word “deliberate” (that is the insinuation put forth by Gaddy)

Gaddy notes: Monssack Fonseca is maintaining that the leak was not an inside job.

What else would they say? What else could they say? Look at the business they are in. Secrecy is everything are they going to admit to an internal security breach? I don’t think so.

3;”Meanwhile, there's plenty of information in the Panama Papers that has already proven extremely embarrassing for other world leaders”
Sure, but, that still doesn’t mean this was a Russian operation. The US has an interest in black mail and keeping other leaders under their thumb. And what about Israel?  Israel is well know for their ability to hack, attack and blackmail. Why exclude the US and Israel?

4- The fact that so few Americans have been linked to the Panama Papers could suggest that their details were deleted from the documents given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and passed on to other media outlets.

I guess that’s possible? Or maybe not? Anything to substantiate that claim? Has any information like that appeared at other media outlets? We all do read the news from all over the globe. Anyone notice any news that would fit this bill? I haven't.

Curiously, the WaPo writer doesn’t link to the Brookings article written by Gaddy. Instead choosing to link to Gaddy’s bio to reinforce the appeal to authority meme

"In a blog post published Thursday on the Brookings website, Gaddy outlined his thoughts on the matter. You should read it all for yourself...."
Here is the omitted link- Why didn't WaPo make it as easy and convenient for their readers? 
I wonder?

Gaddy, himself, down plays his theory, likely because it’s so flimsy that the entirety of it boils down to wild, unsubstantiated speculation, based on nothing. Perhaps he dreamt the whole thing up, I don’t know?

“Gaddy admitted in an email Friday "It's certainly not a theory, hardly even a 'hypothesis,'" Gaddy wrote, adding that it was "more a suggestion of something that ought to be seriously investigated."

“Excellent Conspirology”

““Others offered carefully worded praise. Russian American journalist Masha Gessen called it "excellent conspirology" on Facebook”

excellent conspirology- Wow, that makes me laugh. Considering the many times the negative phrase of “conspiracy theorist” has been lobbed my way? At least when I present a theory I back it up with verifiable examples of collusion between parties.

But if you’re a Brookings affiliated economist, with friends in all the right circles you can write an unsubstantiated, unverifiable, wildly speculative article and have your cohorts swooning over your ‘excellent conspirology” 

Conspirology- pushing propaganda to the limit by applying the suffix of ology  

ology when used as a suffix : a subject of study; a branch of knowledge

 I roll my eyes at the absurdity of a pile of logical fallacies passing as  proof of anything other then manipultive writing skills

appeal to authority

ad hominem



  1. The backlash (trashing) of the Panama Papers was so universal (in all but the M$M) that the perps had to "disown" it. How to do that? Per usual...blame it on the Russians. I note that MSN keeps posting a photo atop the Panama Papers Report...even though they admit in the body of the report that it does not implicate Putin. I e-mailed them about it...but it's still up. My theory in simple terms is that there is a civil war going on in the US between the Pentagon and the CIA. The Pentagon (and State Dept/Kerry) like Putin and have shown a willingness to work with him and his peace initiatives. The CIA/Treasury Dept. OTOH, hate Putin because he wrecked their "five countries in seven years" project. They want to get rid of Putin ASAP and have been seriously dumpster diving for years to look for Putinesque garbage. Alas...none exists because Putin, often to the chagrin of the Rooskies...has been squeaky clean (I read the bio of his early years)...just because he knew this would happen some day.

    1. "The pentagon (State Dept/Kerry) like Putin and have shown a willingness to work with him and his peace initiatives".
      I must disagree with the statement above. They may, and it's a big may, make statements publically indicating a willingness to work with Putin mainly for consumption by those who get their "news" from MSM sources. In reality this type of B.S. is nothing more than a smoke screen. Have you noticed when Kerry meets with Russian leadership and then portrays there is some sort of mutually cooperative agreement, upon his return to the US or some other NATO member country he almost immediately sets conditions if there is to be mutual cooperation? "If and only if" Russia does this or that. Always attempting to indicate that the US is still in charge. Simply stated, they all hate Putin, they all seek his removal from office, and finally they all are working together to bring about the destabilization of Russia and the Balkanization of same. Their ultimate goal. Otherwise, don't believe the hype.

    2. hey gc: I will agree that when plan a failed, plan b had to be enacted. And brookings provided the premise for the plan b.

    3. Hi Charles:

      I've noticed Kerry's regular two face act- And agree that Kerry and company do want Putin out of office and they will try- there is an election coming so look for a 'russian spring' run again
      It won't work- but they'll try
      the goal is to break Russia up-

  2. Precisely. I imagine the scenario went something like this:

    Arse1:(*) - Putin's got billions and billions. Let's track it down and expose him.
    Arse2: Yeah, our contacts can get data on the off-shore banks.
    Arse1: Sh*t - nothing. This guy is good. What are we gonna do with all this data? It cost a good banker's bonus to buy.
    Arse2: We run the good old 'smear by association' scam. It works every time.
    Arse1: Brilliant!
    Arse1: Shit. They weren't fooled and they suspect we we involved. What now?
    Arse2: OK. How about this? There's no evidence implicating Putin. Why? Because Putin! It works every time.
    Arse1: Brilliant. Run it.
    Arse1: Oh sh*t

    * Arse = Anti-Russian StoogE

    1. Excellent summing up of what probably went down.


    2. "There's no evidence implicating Putin. Why? Because Putin!"

      Anonymous that sentence says it all!

  3. Wait and see! Cui prodest? If Masha Gessen did not jump immediately on her Putin-bashing horse I am ready to bet that there is indeed something more than it meets the eye. Why is Cameron bending over backwards to stave off a gathering storm ("Labour MPs called for the prime minister to resign") and Putin laughing and announcing some more unpleasantness?

    "Putin to Declassify Documents That Bear Some "Very Interesting Names"@

    "You brought it upon yourselves.
    Yesterday's Panamanian crib notes immediately received a fitting answer. Guys who are receiving grants from Soros Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, their owners, and other interested parties were thinking that they were taking part in a hunt for the beast. Well, well. This time they were made to play ping-pong, but they didn't even notice it. So naive are they... They scattered the documents around 80 countries and 400 paid journalists to deducted names and addresses. Well, at least one of them was from the CBP (Foreign Intelligence Service) and a couple hundred from the GRU...And they've got their punishment, not them, of course, but their owners.
    The Russian President said that he has decided to declassify many archival documents, and that he will sign the decree today. And it was signed. Here:
    And he quietly added: "This, as far as I know, according to the information from archive agencies, concerns the period from 1930 to 1989. In these documents there are cases, excuse me, of snitches as well as the innocently repressed, with very interesting names, some documents will surprise society..."
    In fact, what is happening is a test for society and the President. He passed an exam for the "leader of the nation", and society - for the "superpower". I have no doubt, personally, of the result. And also no doubt on the number of political cadavers that will appear soon in stupid Europe, which thought that she was taking part in the hunt for the beast, whilst the ambush was prepared for her."
    Excellent conspirology, indeed!From the KGB handbook, no less!

    1. Oh! WizOz, thank you for pointing this out. I'm going to keep a watch for it. The archives from 1930-1989, eh? The U. S. and British governments to the very top were actively involved in helping Stalin. I'm sure those archives contain a lot of shocking information.


    2. Hi wiz oz, should get interesting!

      "Cui prodest?" Indeed.

  4. Well since you decided to write about this I'll just say one thing: please stop using the word "leak". This was called a "data breach" aka "hack" by Mossac. They alerted to the breach months prior to this "leak". Also the NSA knows literally everything that goes on in Panama. Not only the banking but when a person takes a shit. No way could a single source get terabytes of data out safely unless US intel wanted them to. US owns Panama and may be cleaning house to move more money into US safe havens by throwing Panama to the wolves.

    1. Hey SP: Just using the jargon commonly used
      Plus that was the headline from Washington Post
      I understand your point though. Curious have you listened to James Corbett discuss the Panama Papers?
      He raises some interesting points.

      No way could a single source get terabytes of data out safely unless US intel wanted them to

      I agree wholeheartedly!

      "US owns Panama and may be cleaning house to move more money into US safe havens by throwing Panama to the wolves"

      I suspect that is exactly the case- I mean nail meet hammer! Yes.