THREAD I recall 1st time I raised Magnitsky case w RU OSCE diplo & the efforts to get Magnitsky law still a bill then. 1) He did not know Browder's grandfather was head of US Communist Party, or pretended not to know, and usually RU propagandists avoid this as "discreditation";
2) He was shocked that "one man" could "get a senator" to "do this". You can try for 1/2 hr to explain to cynical Russian whose parliament works by phone calls from Pres Admin that this isn't how it works, he will never believe. It remained as staple of Kremlin/some US media;
3) But not "one senator". It's lots in both houses. 4 votes against Magnitsky included Conyers, an old DSA regular often pro-Kremlin, hard left, who feared spoiling relations with RU; Carl Levin (R-Mich) who was an early harbinger of today's GOP pro-RU sentiment; etc.
4) John Kerry did stall, it's on record, Obama did oppose, the asst sect for human rights did oppose, all on "reset grounds" it's all on record. Very hard to convince Jackson-Vanik should have a successor. Human rights problems didn't go away after Soviet Jews left.
5) I recall John Kerry as literally being the last to vote just in time sequence or at least, last reported for some reason. YMMV. Obama Admin very ambivalent or ardently opposed due to pro-Moscow views or "we need RU for Iran" sentiment. FP covered this at the time adequately.
6) We got this policy bc even Medvedev expressed concern and promised investigation but that stalled; the opinion was that this "liberal" of the "tandem" (a fake concept) needed shoring up abroad, not silence
7) We got this policy because assassinations of political/media/justice/religious figures continued; beatings, torture in jail, deaths in custody continued; disappearances & extra judicial killings in Caucasus continued. And so on. Very high level of human rights violations
8) It's ok to develop policies involving only one country; lots of anti-Israel activists want this and get it some times; those concerned about Sudan or Yemen try to get it, and so on. We have human rights laws like Sullivan Act; not enough.
9) The argument that "Magnitsky should be globalized" was first developed to accommodate those on left & right who whined it was too Russian specific but that didn't help immediately; took many years to develop and is now passed.
10) The ability of the much-feared and much-ballyhooed "neocons" (that wouldn't be me, I opposed invasion of Iraq, marched against it, raised it as NGO at UN) to influence policy is very limited. Lots of lobbyists and Obama were on the left then, not under sway of neocons.
11) Another tactic to figure "how we got this policy" is to impugn Browder's motives. I've met him 3-4 times, did translation work for him 5 years ago on the case; I think he's fine. Coming late to human rights work doesn't bother me. Nor did it Jesus, regarding vineyard workers
12) Browder being a capitalist doesn't bother me tho I'm a poor person with inadequate health care, etc. I voted for Hillary. I don't like socialism as it doesn't work in my view. This is immaterial to the Magnitsky case, which is a death in custody, not death of socialism.
13) If Browder has made money from starving Russian pensioners because their funds are robbed by oligarchs whose shares he may have bought, that's Russia's civil rights issue TOO that is helped by not killing lawyers;
14) If Browder sold Gazprom media shares or something that Lucy Komisar is aghast at, that doesn't work for me to undo this story or legislation. There's no evidence that Browder worked on this case to cover his tracks. Medvedev himself didn't accuse him in 2009, remember?
15) Who stands up and paints a target on himself not once as a tactic, not 10 times, but for 9 years, over and over, being threatened, tried in absentia and all the rest? Not most capitalists I know profiting from Russia. Not an explanation for Browder.
16) So, I'm sorry, I'm going to push back on each and every hit piece I see -- and more are in the pipeline because of hatred of the Russian investigation or hatred of capitalism or hatred of Russia critics, left and right. Understood. Bring it. I will contest. I do understand...
17) "how we got this legislation". We got it through a legitimate democratic process in a liberal democratic society under the rule of law as a means of coping with Russia, which is none of those things and a very major threat to the world.
18) We didn't get it due to Jews, neocons, capitalists, purchased senators, Russophobia, tracks-covering, media distortions, lies, corrupt human rights activists or anything Veselnitskaya says. We got it because this is the proper morality of democratic foreign policy. The end.
19) Why all these hit pieces/hand-wringing/pieces "concerned how we got here"? Bc timed. Next week new sanctions list against oligarchs comes out. Russia very mad; oligarchs scared; and agitating with bots, etc.
20) That doesn't mean genuine journalists not paid/allied with Kremlin don't write pieces for real reasons; but it means a whipsawing of the mind share, the social media frenzy that distorts news; the insanity. So use common sense.
