Panama Papers Leak

Bob24

I'm still waiting for them to deliver on this:

https://twitter.com/mathewi/status/716771686482202625

I understand they can't release everything at the same time and have to spread out the articles to have the strongest and most durable impact .... But still nothing US related after almost 2 weeks?

El_Duderino 09

Bob24 wrote:

I'm still waiting for them to deliver on this:

The ICIJ website says they will release more in early may. Naturally enough, they didn't say what they're going to release. I've heard all kinds of conspiracy theories. None has any more validity than another.

fran17

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The ICIJ website says they will release more in early may. Naturally enough, they didn't say what they're going to release. I've heard all kinds of conspiracy theories. None has any more validity than another.

They also said that there is information they will never reveal to the public,why?Yes it will be interesting to see what the next controlled release of information will actually reveal.There attempted implication of Vladimir Putin was hardly a smoking gun,the guy wasn't even named in the files! lol.

El_Duderino 09

fran17 wrote:

They also said that there is information they will never reveal to the public,why?Yes it will be interesting to see what the next controlled release of information will actually reveal.There attempted implication of Vladimir Putin was hardly a smoking gun,the guy wasn't even named in the files! lol.

The Putin link was tenuous. But it grabbed most headlines and it was $2billion.

I hear reasons for having secret shares. Some are for people in crazy countries where they could be kidnapped for ransom if everyone knew about their money. Others are for businesses who fear that customers and suppliers won't deal with them if they know they own shares in certain other companies.

The lack of high profile Americans is suspicious alright. If the CIA were behind it, why would they not just analyse it themselves and remove the high profile Americans from the info before giving it to ICIJ?

I've spent a good lot of time researching the topic and I haven't heard a credible explanation or conspiracy theory.

PopePalpatine

IIRC, Wyoming and Delaware are pretty much tax havens.

fran17

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The Putin link was tenuous. But it grabbed most headlines and it was $2billion.

I hear reasons for having secret shares. Some are for people in crazy countries where they could be kidnapped for ransom if everyone knew about their money. Others are for businesses who fear that customers and suppliers won't deal with them if they know they own shares in certain other companies.

The lack of high profile Americans is suspicious alright. If the CIA were behind it, why would they not just analyse it themselves and remove the high profile Americans from the info before giving it to ICIJ?

I've spent a good lot of time researching the topic and I haven't heard a credible explanation or conspiracy theory.

Tenuous to say the least,its this type of unethical media bias,which the likes of The Guardian's Luke Harding peddle,that brings the whole of journalism into question.
One thing most reporting of this story fail to acknowledge is that this was not a leak of information but a hack.This is not a Wikileaks equivalent we're talking about,where the public receives the information,but a very large chunk of hacked data which the ICIJ,US OCCRP etc had been massaging for over a year before selected information was published.Wikileaks themselves believe this was a CIA job and have said as much.The CIA have been widely believed to be using Panama for money laundering for decades.What makes you believe that US individuals of political and/or financial influence have not been removed from the data?
This whole story stinks the more you analyse it.Operation Mockingbird anyone...

Bob24

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The ICIJ website says they will release more in early may. Naturally enough, they didn't say what they're going to release. I've heard all kinds of conspiracy theories. None has any more validity than another.

I'm not necessarily saying the original leak was edited and targeted at specific people (though I wouldn't discard it either). But assuming it isn't, I can't imagine how there wouldn't be any American names on the list, and it is a strange editorial choice to release stuff about most major countries in the world on the first 2 weeks - and nothing at all about the elephant in the room (not even a few minor names if they want to keep high profile individuals for later series of articles).

20Cent

fran17 wrote: »

Tenuous to say the least,its this type of unethical media bias,which the likes of The Guardian's Luke Harding peddle,that brings the whole of journalism into question.
One thing most reporting of this story fail to acknowledge is that this was not a leak of information but a hack.This is not a Wikileaks equivalent we're talking about,where the public receives the information,but a very large chunk of hacked data which the ICIJ,US OCCRP etc had been massaging for over a year before selected information was published.Wikileaks themselves believe this was a CIA job and have said as much.The CIA have been widely believed to be using Panama for money laundering for decades.What makes you believe that US individuals of political and/or financial influence have not been removed from the data?
This whole story stinks the more you analyse it.Operation Mockingbird anyone...

What is the evidence that it was a hack rather than a leak?
The data was leaked to the press anyway whoever the source is may have hacked it but haven't read that allegation from anywhere.
They didn't just dump all the data on a server that would be highly irresponsible as journalists they had to go through it first.
As for the conspiracy theories don't see what the US or Russia would have to gain from it. Sounds like an employee or someone on the inside disgusted at what was going on decided to publicise it.

El_Duderino 09

Bob24 wrote:

I'm not necessarily saying the original leak was edited and targeted at specific people (though I wouldn't discard it either). But assuming it isn't, I can't imagine how there wouldn't be any American names on the list, and it is a strange editorial choice to release stuff about most major countries in the world on the first 2 weeks - and nothing at all about the elephant in the room (not even a few minor names if they want to keep high profile individuals for later series of articles).

The are thousands of Americans on the list. There just don't seem to be any high profile connections like Putin's mates or Cameron's dad. you can search by country on the ICIJ site.

20Cent wrote:

What is the evidence that it was a hack rather than a leak? The data was leaked to the press anyway whoever the source is may have hacked it but haven't read that allegation from anywhere. They didn't just dump all the data on a server that would be highly irresponsible as journalists they had to go through it first. As for the conspiracy theories don't see what the US or Russia would have to gain from it. Sounds like an employee or someone on the inside disgusted at what was going on decided to publicise it.

Theres loads of stories about it being a hack. That was the original response by Mossak Fonceka. They reported it to the police as a hack. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have surprised if an employee would need to hack that kind of sensitive information. I don't suppose everyone at the company can get that kind of info.

The German journalists aren't saying who the leak came from. They might not know who they are and whether it was an inside whistle blower or an external hack. We can all speculate, but we don't know.

Frynge

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The are thousands of Americans on the list. There just don't seem to be any high profile connections like Putin's mates or Cameron's dad. you can search by country on the ICIJ site.

I think what you are able to search is a different leak from 2013.

fran17

20Cent wrote: »

What is the evidence that it was a hack rather than a leak?
The data was leaked to the press anyway whoever the source is may have hacked it but haven't read that allegation from anywhere.
They didn't just dump all the data on a server that would be highly irresponsible as journalists they had to go through it first.
As for the conspiracy theories don't see what the US or Russia would have to gain from it. Sounds like an employee or someone on the inside disgusted at what was going on decided to publicise it.

Mossack Fonseca was hacked from abroad and not from within,they have made official complaints to the relevant authorities.I imagine they underplayed it initially as it will have detrimental consequences for business in the future.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35975503

I think the days of the media being responsible are well and truly behind us tbh,I don't think anyone can deny that this story has been completely manipulated by the ICIJ and other western outlets.
Well I can pretty confidently say that Russia will not gain from this and also that the USA will not suffer.The initial media blast concerning Vladimir Putin pretty much ended in nothing more than a whimper once the headlines were investigated a little further and made quite a few media outlets,particularly the Guardian,look pathetic.But a lot of others who's reputation the US would gladly tarnish are implicated.Considering the US/Panama history I don't see many big players in the US having their finances there.Mossack Fonseca was founded in the very year that transfer of ownership of the Panama canal begun in the US and throughout the late 70's and 80's Panama was a dictatorship.Of course a dictatorship financed and supported by the US but still quite volatile until the US invasion in 89.The 2010 US/Panama trade agreement also deterred many from using the country also.So Panama would be a pretty good place to find evidence concerning the financial wrongdoings of world figures that would have minimal impact on uncle sam.

Bob24

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The are thousands of Americans on the list. There just don't seem to be any high profile connections like Putin's mates or Cameron's dad. you can search by country on the ICIJ site.

If the list doesn't contain any American name worth publishing in the media, I would find it difficult to believe it hasn't been truncated.

The question is more has it been truncated by the source of the leak or the journalists and why.

K-9

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Panama Papers? I've forgotten already.
Apparently 185 journalists in 65 countries "worked" for a year on this "major story" that has now sunk quicker than the Titanic!
Says it all about the sorry state of "journalism" these days.

Probably more a reflection on us and modern society than journalists.

Will be interesting to see if there's more to come out. Barring the Icelandic PM and Cameron there wasn't that much we didn't suspect anyway, dodgy Russians and what not.

More interesting for Ireland would be the report published on our tax regime today.

K-9

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It would be bang out of order to saycwho he sold the shares to.

I think the gift from his mother is not subject to tax if she doesn't die for 7 years. I might have picked that up wrong though because it sounds crazy. I think it's to do with the difference between a gift to children and inheritance tax.

7 years is probably aimed at somebody knowing a parent is going to die from alzheimers etc. and doing some "tax planning". Agree with you that the publicity will do no harm at keeping this stuff on the agenda.

Apparently more and more stuff kept coming after the initial leak so time will tell if there's more to come. As somebody mentioned you've Delaware in the US and Ireland in the EU that can be used to be tax efficient.

Sam Russell

K-9 wrote: »

Apparently more and more stuff kept coming after the initial leak so time will tell if there's more to come. As somebody mentioned you've Delaware in the US and Ireland in the EU that can be used to be tax efficient.

Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, etc etc etc. We have loads of convenient tax regimes before we enlist Switzerland, Cayman, etc etc etc.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

"Journalism" indeed,not that we needed confirmation but this really is collusion,distortion of fact and unethical behaviour in journalism at its very worst.

It is collusion. 400 journalists conspired in secret to go through almost 11.5 million documents for almost a year

The information they have produced is false? all of it? or some of it? which parts exactly? and what solid evidence is there of this?

Why is it unethical? much offshore activity is perfectly legal, however some is illegal - this is exposing that and as a result shaking up the system

Mossack Fonseca as an organization has some serious finance, compliance and risk issues to answer to. Likewise thousands of people from all over the world are currently under investigation.

How is this bad journalism?

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It is collusion. 400 journalists conspired in secret to go through almost 11.5 million documents for almost a year

The information they have produced is false? all of it? or some of it? which parts exactly? and what solid evidence is there of this?

Why is it unethical? much offshore activity is perfectly legal, however some is illegal - this is exposing that and as a result shaking up the system

Mossack Fonseca as an organization has some serious finance, compliance and risk issues to answer to. Likewise thousands of people from all over the world are currently under investigation.

How is this bad journalism?

Correct it was collusion.Collusion between the US/Soros backed ICIJ,the OCCRP,and their affiliates in distributing this illegally obtained data theft resulting from what was a criminal act.Far from being content with making this information available for the public good they then drip feed,what they consider to be "in the public interest",data regarding individuals,companies and organisations without ties to US interests.The ICIJ state also there is certain data they will never reveal or discuss.Why?

I never cast aspersions regarding the validity of the data.However the co founder of Mossack Fonseca,Ramon Fonseca Mora,has stated numerously that much of this data so far is false,full of inaccuracies and that the parties in many of the circumstances sited by the ICIJ "are not and have never been clients of Mossack Fonseca".But never let the truth get in the way of a story right?

Its unethical because this consortium of journalists have deliberately used what is illegally obtained information to attack and besmirch the character of certain individuals in a deliberate and biased manner thus far.

Its bad journalism for all of the above.

K-9

Ah wel, if Ramon Fonseca, the co founder says it...

This is classic journalism, All the Presidents Men, the Profumo scandal, GUBU in Ireland, Spotlight. If everything was 100% above board journalists would rarely find out anything.

Any Russian journalists involved in this? It's them I'd be worried for.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

Correct it was collusion.Collusion between the US/Soros backed ICIJ,the OCCRP,and their affiliates in distributing this illegally obtained data theft resulting from what was a criminal act.

It took two broadsheets to break Snowden's leak to the world. This is hundreds of journalists from 107 media organisations with the actual documents, which they are sharing with investigators from all over the world.

Mossack Fonseca can claim what they want about the leak, they are under heavy investigation from multiple sources

The leak has been an excellent example of investigative journalism and it's value. Guaranteed a lot of people, especially high up, are extremely nervous about this.

El_Duderino 09

fran17 wrote:

Its unethical because this consortium of journalists have deliberately used what is illegally obtained information to attack and besmirch the character of certain individuals in a deliberate and biased manner thus far.

Under Panamanian law, it's illegal to divulge information about beneficial ownership. M&F can't say the files are accurate.

fran17 wrote:

Its bad journalism for all of the above.

Even if it isn't the whole truth, it highlights that it's becoming more difficult to hide money offshore for evasion purposes. That's a good thing. It's been too easy for too long and normal people make up the difference in the tax we pay.

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It took two broadsheets to break Snowden's leak to the world. This is hundreds of journalists from 107 media organisations with the actual documents, which they are sharing with investigators from all over the world.

Mossack Fonseca can claim what they want about the leak, they are under heavy investigation from multiple sources

The leak has been an excellent example of investigative journalism and it's value. Guaranteed a lot of people, especially high up, are extremely nervous about this.

An excellent example of investigative journalism for who?It's claimed that both China and Russia are the top two countries regarding the source for this money.How many Chinese or Russian journalists/news agencies were involved in investigating this story?Baring in mind they would be the obvious choice considering their local knowledge regarding the companies and players in these countries and also consider that this story is over one year in the making.

El_Duderino 09

fran17 wrote:

Correct it was collusion.Collusion between the US/Soros backed ICIJ,the OCCRP,and their affiliates in distributing this illegally obtained data theft resulting from what was a criminal act.Far from being content with making this information available for the public good they then drip feed,what they consider to be "in the public interest",data regarding individuals,companies and organisations without ties to US interests.The ICIJ state also there is certain data they will never reveal or discuss.Why?

When the Lagarde list was leaked, they gave it straight to the tax authorities who said it wasn't enough to build a case on. HMRC in the UK prosecuted 0 people. They decided to look through the files and when they found evasion, they offered Disclosure Facilities to the evaders.

This time the journalists went through it and made the connections for them. I'll be I tested to see how the tax authorities handle it this time.

There's an attitude that it's not fair to prosecute people for offshore evasion from a leak because the evaders didn't think they could be caught. The attitude as always 'ah let them off THIS TIME' and next time they will say the same thing.

This leak is a game changer because the journalists are doing the analysis to make it hstder for tax authorities from wussing out of taking action. I don't think there will be criminal prosecutions from this leak, but it really could be the thin end of the wedge for making beneficial ownership available to tax authorities.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

An excellent example of investigative journalism for who?It's claimed that both China and Russia are the top two countries regarding the source for this money.How many Chinese or Russian journalists/news agencies were involved in investigating this story?Baring in mind they would be the obvious choice considering their local knowledge regarding the companies and players in these countries and also consider that this story is over one year in the making.

There's as many Spanish government officials as there are Chinese

The Chinese press entirely censored the story, contrast that with how the Spanish press handled it and you have your answer

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's as many Spanish government officials as there are Chinese

The Chinese press entirely censored the story, contrast that with how the Spanish press handled it and you have your answer

That's where everything is not that black and white (Western Press: good, Other press: bad).

I am not praising them for it, but at least with the Russian and Chinese media you know what to expect: they will filter out the information which doesn't suit their countrie' governments.

In the West the filter also exists but is much much subtle and difficult to get a grasp on: it could be business or political lobbies controlling the information given to the media to manipulate them, political bias from journalists who only release selected information to try and support their ideology while looking unbiased (especially an issues if most journalists support the same ideology), some ideas being prominent in the media though public/private funding and broadcast frequencies deals which give them better access to the audiance, so that alternate ideas are invisible in the mass of what is being served to the public, etc.

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's as many Spanish government officials as there are Chinese

The Chinese press entirely censored the story, contrast that with how the Spanish press handled it and you have your answer

And Vladimir Putin,in a year long search to implicate him,is not named once in the data.How do you explain his name being the main headline when this story broke?
Let's look at the big picture again,Russia and China are by far,according to a sample of 13,000 owners of these accounts,the main sources of this money.Why would no Russian or Chinese media outlet be at least consulted while investigating this story?If you have the figures then please share them.I don't think,in the 21st century,the defence of total government censorship carries much water.

K-9

fran17 wrote: »

And Vladimir Putin,in a year long search to implicate him,is not named once in the data.How do you explain his name being the main headline when this story broke?
Let's look at the big picture again,Russia and China are by far,according to a sample of 13,000 owners of these accounts,the main sources of this money.Why would no Russian or Chinese media outlet be at least consulted while investigating this story?If you have the figures then please share them.I don't think,in the 21st century,the defence of total government censorship carries much water.

Were they not consulted in Russia or China?

If not I'd say the problem was worries about privacy, it was a huge undertaking to keep this quiet for so long.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

And Vladimir Putin,in a year long search to implicate him

If any major head of state's childhood friends, sports partners, etc became exceeding rich through during his/her leadership and were named in the papers I would be surprised if there wasn't media coverage

Quite a few heads of state were directly and indirectly affected by this leak, the more prominent ones grabbed more headlines, Cameron, Icelandic PM, Putin, Jining, Poroshenko

Why would no Russian or Chinese media outlet be at least consulted while investigating this story?If you have the figures then please share them.I don't think,in the 21st century,the defence of total government censorship carries much water.

Perhaps they were - however it was a highly sensitive investigation, the Chinese have a habit of disappearing journalists and authors for far less. Russia is also not the safest place to work as a journalist, especially in the current nationalist climate

fran17

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When the Lagarde list was leaked, they gave it straight to the tax authorities who said it wasn't enough to build a case on. HMRC in the UK prosecuted 0 people. They decided to look through the files and when they found evasion, they offered Disclosure Facilities to the evaders.

This time the journalists went through it and made the connections for them. I'll be I tested to see how the tax authorities handle it this time.

There's an attitude that it's not fair to prosecute people for offshore evasion from a leak because the evaders didn't think they could be caught. The attitude as always 'ah let them off THIS TIME' and next time they will say the same thing.

This leak is a game changer because the journalists are doing the analysis to make it hstder for tax authorities from wussing out of taking action. I don't think there will be criminal prosecutions from this leak, but it really could be the thin end of the wedge for making beneficial ownership available to tax authorities.

I hear what your saying but how much of it is illegal?Sure a percentage of the funds making up these off shore companies may have come from dubious sources but that's a whole other days work.
If the intentions of the ICIJ were as pure as that then the failed attempt to link Mr.Putin to it would not be an issue at all.

fran17

K-9 wrote: »

Were they not consulted in Russia or China?

If not I'd say the problem was worries about privacy, it was a huge undertaking to keep this quiet for so long.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.Considering the ICIJ are based in Washington DC,funded partly by the CIA(through the Ford Foundation) and also Mr.Soros,I'm going to say no ;-)

K-9

fran17 wrote: »

I hear what your saying but how much of it is illegal?Sure a percentage of the funds making up these off shore companies may have come from dubious sources but that's a whole other days work.
If the intentions of the ICIJ were as pure as that then the failed attempt to link Mr.Putin to it would not be an issue at all.

I suppose there's a moral issue here to, many of these cases might not involve anything illegal at all, which seems to be the case with Cameron. Doesn't mean there aren't questions for him to answer, especially after him making stuff like this a big issue.

I see stuff has come out about 2 Independent media directors today, I'd be wary of competitor papers possibly using this to have a go at rivals, not saying that is the case here.

Privacy for journalists was important though, only a select bunch if journalists had access to this throughout the world to avoid leaks or undue pressure put on them. As can be seen with the recent case in England when the press didn't print stuff, about the Tory in charge of media reform, pressure can come in many forms. Something like this which was worldwide would need very tight supervision. It's amazing it wasn't leaked earlier.

El_Duderino 09

fran17 wrote:

I hear what your saying but how much of it is illegal?Sure a percentage of the funds making up these off shore companies may have come from dubious sources but that's a whole other days work. If the intentions of the ICIJ were as pure as that then the failed attempt to link Mr.Putin to it would not be an issue at all.

We don't know how much of it is illegal. Change the laws so they have to share info about beneficial ownership, and the innocent can be left alone to mind their own business while the evaders are highlighted.

Putin's mates were named and they are his mates. These nothing untrue in that. Putin hasn't been accused of anything.
Putin has greatest name recognition and his 2 mates laundered up to $2billion through panama. It would be foolish for a journalist to miss that low hanging fruit.

It's grand to do whataboutery with the hack. I dont see how this can be a huge problem for normal people who pay their tax. Nothing will happen to them. But laws are more likely to change on account of the hack.

Dohnjoe

Looks like Russian journalists were involved in disseminating the info from the leak (from Vedemosti and Novaya Gazeta)

vetinari

There's enough that has come out to show Mossack Fonseca were up to their eyeballs in dodgy deals.
Panama as a country is implicit in this as well. Their disclosure laws are not written by accident.
It's the same in states like Delaware in the US, they actively solicit this type of shady business.

20Cent

The journalists are doing an ama on Reddit now. Might answer some of the questions raised in this thread.

https://m.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4fi6ck/we_are_the_investigative_journalists_who_worked/

Bob24

20Cent wrote: »

The journalists are doing an ama on Reddit now. Might answer some of the questions raised in this thread.

https://m.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4fi6ck/we_are_the_investigative_journalists_who_worked/

Thanks for the link.

Their answers about the absence of American names are not that convincing.

2 weeks ago when asked about this they answered "wait for what is coming next", and now the answer is "Mossack Fonseca did not focus on american clients, as they told AP recently. Still, there were hundreds of Americans in the documents, but we did not find as many "high profile" ones as in other countries.".

They have been working on this for a year and if there aren't any high profile American names they already knew it 2 weeks ago. Strange they didn't give that straight answer then and implied something was coming.

fran17

20Cent wrote: »

The journalists are doing an ama on Reddit now. Might answer some of the questions raised in this thread.

https://m.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4fi6ck/we_are_the_investigative_journalists_who_worked/

Excellent link,thanks.
All very cloak and dagger stuff really,vague and ambiguous.I like the part where they state "We don't work together with intelligence agencies.Ever" Right guys,your just financed by them then :pac:

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

Excellent link,thanks.
All very cloak and dagger stuff really,vague and ambiguous.I like the part where they state "We don't work together with intelligence agencies.Ever" Right guys,your just financed by them then :pac:

Seemed like reasonable answers and good information. As for financing, it's perfectly normal for large companies, even corporations to fund and support many different organisations, charities, NGOs. For example I work in a large company, they fund several projects all around the world, e.g. we fund NGOs in Uganda. Rothchilds and Goldman Sachs are some of our clients.

Any number of imagined tenuous conspiracy links could be made out of that

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Seemed like reasonable answers and good information. As for financing, it's perfectly normal for large companies, even corporations to fund and support many different organisations, charities, NGOs. For example I work in a large company, they fund several projects all around the world, e.g. we fund NGOs in Uganda. Rothchilds and Goldman Sachs are some of our clients.

Any number of imagined tenuous conspiracy links could be made out of that

We must have been directed to quite different links then,the only new information I garnered was that the ICIJ were being disingenuous when asked about US involvement in the hacked data two weeks ago.
Yes it is perfectly normal for companies,corporations etc. to fund private organisations to pursue their interests and gain leverage,however the CIA is neither company or corporation.It is,apart from assassins,financiers of coups,sponsors of dictatorships,drug runners and illegal arms traders,an arm of the US government.The ford foundation was placed on India's watch list in 2015,citing "concerns for national interest and security" as the reason.It was officially removed this year purely to coincide with the Indian prime minister's visit to the US.NGO my foot.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

Yes it is perfectly normal for companies,corporations etc. to fund private organisations to pursue their interests and gain leverage,however the CIA is neither company or corporation.

You're implying that 350+ investigative journalists are working for the CIA? knowingly or unknowingly?

PopePalpatine

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're implying that 350+ investigative journalists are working for the CIA? knowingly or unknowingly?

Holy crap, I think you just stumbled upon MK Ultra 2.0! :pac:

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're implying that 350+ investigative journalists are working for the CIA? knowingly or unknowingly?

Nice strawman,I thought you said it was 400 journalists?
Your persisting with this,Where is your evidence to support that the overwhelming acknowledgment across all divides regarding the CIA funding of the Ford Foundation is incorrect?

Billy86

fran17 wrote: »

Nice strawman,I thought you said it was 400 journalists?
Your persisting with this,Where is your evidence to support that the overwhelming acknowledgment across all divides regarding the CIA funding of the Ford Foundation is incorrect?

You said "Yes it is perfectly normal for companies,corporations etc. to fund private organisations to pursue their interests and gain leverage,however the CIA is neither company or corporation" and "I like the part where they state "We don't work together with intelligence agencies.Ever" Right guys,your just financed by them then"

How is it a straw man for Dohnjoe to pretty much repeat that, by asking if you seriously think all of these journalists are working for the CIA? Or to ask if you think they would be doing so knowingly or unknowingly?

I can't see anything even remotely close to anything that could possibly resemble a straw man in there. You do know what a straw man argument actually is, right?

InTheTrees

fran17 wrote: »

Your persisting with this,Where is your evidence to support that the overwhelming acknowledgment across all divides regarding the CIA funding of the Ford Foundation is incorrect?

They're a non profit organisation who's tax returns are public for a start.

Never mind the fact they have assets of $12bn from which they give away $500m a year which would be a big dent out of the CIA's budget.

Or that they've given to labour unions, they stopped giving to Israel in support of Palestinians, which would seem to be against CIA interests.

They even gave half a million to the Occupy Wall Street organisers.

SO maybe you're right and they'e funded by the CIA but you could provide some details to support that claim?

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

Your persisting with this,Where is your evidence to support that the overwhelming acknowledgment across all divides regarding the CIA funding of the Ford Foundation is incorrect?

A strawman argument is something different and 350+ is correct (the quoted figure is between 370 and 400 journalists depending on source)

The reason I highlighted the figures is because it's exponentially harder to work a conspiracy when the number of people involved increases, and even more difficult when the type of people involved are investigative journalists, many from respectable and established outlets

It would be fairly remarkable that you personally know about some conspiracy, but they haven't spotted it (or worse are involved in it) - people whose careers and reputations are based on investigating and exposing corruption, sleaze, conspiracy, secrecy

Perhaps you are entirely correct, but when someone presents a claim, the onus is on them to back it up, not vice versa.

InTheTrees

fran17 wrote: »

Where is your evidence to support that the overwhelming acknowledgment across all divides regarding the CIA funding of the Ford Foundation is incorrect?

ICIJ is part of the Center For Public Integrity who receive funding from (among others):

" the Sunlight Foundation, the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.[34] The Barbra Streisand Foundation reports that it has funded CPI.[36]"

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

K-9

fran17 wrote: »

Excellent link,thanks.
All very cloak and dagger stuff really,vague and ambiguous.I like the part where they state "We don't work together with intelligence agencies.Ever" Right guys,your just financed by them then :pac:

You've one good point about the CIA, but as was posted, this information was distributed to many respected newspapers worldwide.

Take an example, if the CIA was so influential The Guardian would be a strange choice of newspaper considering their record in publishing stuff like this before.

fran17

Billy86 wrote: »

You said "Yes it is perfectly normal for companies,corporations etc. to fund private organisations to pursue their interests and gain leverage,however the CIA is neither company or corporation" and "I like the part where they state "We don't work together with intelligence agencies.Ever" Right guys,your just financed by them then"

How is it a straw man for Dohnjoe to pretty much repeat that, by asking if you seriously think all of these journalists are working for the CIA? Or to ask if you think they would be doing so knowingly or unknowingly?

I can't see anything even remotely close to anything that could possibly resemble a straw man in there. You do know what a straw man argument actually is, right?

Yes,yes I'm fully aware thanks.My vocabulary even stretches to condescending
The question of the 350,370,400 journalists,I've lost count at this stage,working for the CIA or if they are knowingly or unknowingly doing so is not an argument I've been pursuing and to introduce it as one in response to a question is by definition a strawman argument.
My whole point is that the link between the CIA and the Ford foundation and how the ICIJ have chosen to report the findings of these files casts a shadow of doubt regarding the question of integrity.
Jeez this is hard work,I gotta lie down.

fran17

InTheTrees wrote: »

They're a non profit organisation who's tax returns are public for a start.

Never mind the fact they have assets of $12bn from which they give away $500m a year which would be a big dent out of the CIA's budget.

Or that they've given to labour unions, they stopped giving to Israel in support of Palestinians, which would seem to be against CIA interests.

They even gave half a million to the Occupy Wall Street organisers.

SO maybe you're right and they'e funded by the CIA but you could provide some details to support that claim?

There has been a CIA/Ford link since the 50's that I don't think can be ignored.Why would a non profit foundation who "envision a just,fair and peaceful world with opportunity for all" carry such a stigma and national security threat otherwise.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30039.html

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/ford-foundation-and-cia.html

http://www.news18.com/news/india/ford-foundation-and-its-alleged-cia-connections-983755.html

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

There has been a CIA/Ford link since the 50's that I don't think can be ignored.

A "link" exists between just about every organisation, corporation and government agency in the world

Not to sound too condescending here but unless this link can be furnished I would strongly suggest that yes it can be ignored.

To be frank, these "conspiracies" emerged two days after the leaks when naturally certain portions of the internet got pissed their favorite target (the US) wasn't implicated enough and engaged in the usual whataboutery.

how the ICIJ have chosen to report the findings of these files casts a shadow of doubt regarding the question of integrity.

They reported their findings in the press. Five world leaders and up to 40 heads of state directly/indirectly implicated, as well as hundreds/thousands of private individuals who may or may not be guilty of tax evasion, money laundering, etc - as well as their stated aim of putting world attention on the activities of offshoring and these tax havens

They haven't revealed the source (at his/her explicit request) They didn't leak the story before they were scheduled to. There is nothing to imply any of this is untrue or false (unless we have world leaders and ministers quitting and being put under pressure for no reason)

What valid reasons are there to question the integrity of their work?

InTheTrees

fran17 wrote: »

There has been a CIA/Ford link since the 50's that I don't think can be ignored.

So to review... conspiracy theorists think that a non-profit that may or may not have hired some ex-cia members fifty years ago, may have given some cash (dont know how much though) to an organisation that runs the ICIJ.

And that leads the Conspiracy Believers to conclude that the CIA can suppress the information in the leak?

How would that work exactly? CIA spooks approach the journalists from Le Monde or The Guardian and tell them "You mustn't implicate any Americans because we gave money to the Ford Foundation that gave money to the CPI that may have given money to the ICIJ."

Seriously?