Archives for the month of: August, 2018

The Daily Beast here tries to explain the bizarre conspiracy theory behind QAnon.

“As The Daily Beast’s own Will Sommer recently explained, QAnon is a grassroots conspiracy theory that originated on 4chan and its fringe companion 8chan last year. An anonymous person or persons, going by the pseudonym “Q,” has been posting a vague series of what supporters (the “Anon” part) call “breadcrumbs,” helping them piece together a completely bizarre plot line in which President Trump was secretly appointed by the U.S. military to take down a cabal of global banking fat cats, Hillary Clinton-led murder squads, deep-state actors, and Pizzagate-like pedophile rings that have long controlled the “criminal presidency.”

“Trump and his allies will eventually send all of these supposed enemies of freedom—including Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tom Hanks (wtf?)—to prison at Guantanamo Bay. That great reckoning is called “The Storm.”

“Further complicating an already-insane narrative, QAnon disciples have been told that Special Counsel Robert Mueller—who is currently probing alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia—is actually working hand-in-hand with the president to take down this shadowy cabal of pedophiles.”

Well, now that we know Trump and Mueller are allies, we can rest assured that Trump won’t fire Mueller.

Hey, did any of you teachers out there teach civics or critical thinking to these folks?

I learned from Bill Phillis’s posts about a great new organization that has just been launched in Ohio.

If you live in Ohio, join it.

The organization, called Public Education Partners, was inspired by Jan Resseger’s post: https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/my-public-education-platform/

Every candidate running for public office, whether school board, state legislature, the governorship, or Congress should be asked to take a stand: Do you support this platform?

Preamble to PEP’s Public Education Platform

The Ohio Constitution (Article VI, sections 2 and 3) requires the state to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools and provide for the organization, administration and control of the system. School district boards of education have the constitutional and statutory responsibility to administer the educational program. Boards of education have the fiduciary duty to ensure the educational needs of all resident students are met in an equitable and adequate manner.

The state’s first obligation is to ensure that a thorough and efficient system is established and maintained. The state has no right under the Ohio constitution to fund alternative educational programs that diminish moral and financial support from the common school system. Ohio’s system of school was declared unconstitutional more than two decades ago, yet since that time $11 billion have been drained from the public school system for publicly- funded, privately-operated charter schools. This egregious flaw in state policy must be addressed.

Jan Resseger of Cleveland Heights has aptly defined state and local responsibility for education as follows:

A comprehensive system of public education that serves all children and is democratically governed, publicly funded, universally accessible, and accountable to the public is central to the common good.

The education platform premised on the constitutional responsibility of the state of Ohio as stated in the preamble is:

A comprehensive system of public education that serves all children and is democratically governed, publicly funded, universally accessible, and accountable to the public, is central to the common good.
~Jan Resseger

Ohio Public Education Platform

This education platform is premised on the constitutional responsibility of the state of Ohio:

 Provide adequate and equitable funding to Ohio school districts to guarantee a comparable opportunity to learn for ALL children. This includes a quality early childhood education, qualified teachers, a rich curriculum that will prepare students for college, work and community, and equitable instructional resources. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WLdVez25ZjDzzd2irSUwUggj-GflNQuO/view?usp=sharing

 Respect local control of public schools run by elected school boards. There are different needs for different schools of different sizes, and each local school board knows what its students, families, and community values. http://www.nvasb.org/assets/why_school_boards.pdf

 Reject the school privatization agenda, which includes state takeovers, charter schools, voucher schemes, and high-stakes testing. The school privatization agenda has proven to be ineffective at bringing efficiency and cost savings to our schools. https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Privatizing_Public_Education,_Higher_Ed_Policy,_and_T eachers

 Do away with the state takeovers of school districts imposed in House Bill 70. State takeovers of school districts (HB 70), followed by the appointment of CEOs with power to override the decisions of elected school boards and nullify union contracts, is undemocratic, unaccountable, and without checks and balances. http://www.reclaimourschools.org/sites/default/files/state-takeover-factsheet-3.pdf

 Promote a moratorium on the authorization of new charter schools while gradually removing existing charters, which take funding and other valuable resources from public school districts. Charter schools remove funds and other resources from public school districts and need to be phased out. For-profit charter schools should be eliminated – tax dollars should never be transferred into private profits. https://knowyourcharter.com/

 Eliminate vouchers and tuition tax credit programs. Voucher schemes take desperately needed dollars out of education budgets and undermine the protection of religious liberty as defined by the First Amendment. https://educationvotes.nea.org/2017/02/08/5-names- politicians-use-sell-private-school-voucher-schemes-parents/

 Encourage wraparound community learning centers that bring social and health services into Ohio school buildings. These wraparound services ensure that the public schools are the center of the neighborhood, and they include health, dental, and mental health clinics, after school programs, and parent support programs. Cincinnati Public Schools has a very successful program: https://www.cps-k12.org/community/clc

 End the test-and-punish philosophy, and replace it with an ideology of school investment and improvement. The tests have narrowed the curriculum to the tested subjects. If national standardized testing is to continue, testing should be limited to the federal minimum guidelines, and there should be no state standardized tests beyond those mandated by ESSA. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- sheet/wp/2017/01/06/how-testing-practices-have-to-change-in-u-s-public- schools/?utm_term=.45d28f77dcb0

 Remove high stakes mandates from schools, and abolish the practice of punishing schools, teachers, families, and students for arbitrary test scores. Do away with mandatory retention attached to the 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee and high school end-of-course state tests. If parents choose to opt their children out of testing, no one should be penalized. http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Dangerous-Consequences-of-high-stakes- tests.pdf

 Restore respect for well-trained, certified teachers, and return educator evaluation systems to locally elected school boards. Dismiss Teach for America, which is funded by the Eli Broad Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. https://progressive.org/public-school-shakedown/went-wrong-teach-america/

Eliminate the practice of judging teachers by their students’ scores – research has proven it unreliable. http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/TeacherEvaluationFactSheetRevisionJanuary201 6.pdf

If you like high-stakes testing and charter schools, you will love “Democrats for Education Reform.”

DFER, as it is known, was condemned by resolution by the Democratic party conferences in Colorado and California for using the word “Democrat” to promote a corporate agenda that is hostile to public schools. DFER is also hostile to public school teachers and unions, but loves TFA and merit pay. All the usual Corporate Reform failures. Real Democrats, like the parties in Colorado and California think that DFERs are Republicans pretending to be Democrats.

Democrats for Education Reform is a group funded by Wall Street hedge fund managers who despise public schools. They never support candidates who are opposed to privatization or those who are fully committed to public schools. They only support candidates who want to siphon money away from public schools to support charter schools. They support candidates who love high-stakes testing. They never look at evidence that shows the damage that charters do to public schools or the evidence that shows the total failure of high-stakes testing to make any difference other than demoralizing students and teachers. They don’t care that a decade of their policies driven by the U.S. Department of Education has led to stagnation of NAEP scores.

In New York State, hedge funders supporting charter schools are pouring millions of dollars into races for the State Senate, both to support the charter school industry and to make sure that Republicans retain control of the State Senate, thus fending off higher taxes and protecting charter schools. Another DFERite dumping big money into New York State campaigns is Paul Tudor Jones, who gave $150,000 to something called “Parents Vote,” which seems to be controlled by StudentsFirst (hard to tell the Astroturf organizations apart). The treasurer of “Parents Vote” is the attorney for StudentsFirst. Jones may be a parent, but he lives in Connecticut, not New York, and you can bet your bottom dollar that he does not send his own children to public schools or charter schools. This outpouring of money is meant to keep the State Senate firmly under GOP management, to make sure that charters continue to operate without oversight and do their own thing.

You may or may not remember that Paul Tudor Jones is one of the nine billionaires who determined that it was up to them to remake the public schools of New York, although no one elected them to do so.

Just five years ago, Forbes ran a big article about Paul Tudor Jones and his plan to “save American education.” While busy saving American education, Jones also served on the board of Harvey Weinstein’s company and fought to save Harvey’s battered reputation.

Please note that the following story misidentifies DFER and treats them as a legitimate “reform” group when DFER acts only in the interest of Corporate Reform, high-stakes testing and privatization. The story also errs in not acknowledging that many DFER members are not Democrats.

From Politico:


FIRST LOOK: EDUCATION REFORM GROUP BETS BIG ON GOVERNOR’S RACES: Democrats for Education Reform plans to spend $4 million on campaign contributions and advertising this election cycle, boosting Democratic candidates who want to support public schools but are open to reform-minded ways of improving them.

— The organization — which advocates for a host of school reform policies nationwide like strong test-based accountability and high-quality public charter schools — through its political action committee is prioritizing gubernatorial races in Colorado, Connecticut and New York, in addition to the California state superintendent’s race and some state legislative races. DFER exclusively detailed its spending and campaign plans with Morning Education in an interview late last month. Asked the source of the $4 million, a spokeswoman the figure comes from their “supporters” and “contributors.”

— In Colorado’s battle for governor, DFER is backing Rep. Jared Polis, a House education committee Democrat who’s running against state Treasurer Walker Stapleton, a Republican.

— The race to replace term-limited Gov. John Hickenlooper has proven divisive for Colorado Democrats — the state teachers union backed another Democrat, Cary Kennedy, during the primary. Allies of Kennedy sought to tie Polis to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her support for private school vouchers. Polis founded two charter schools, but hasn’t shown support for vouchers or federally funded private schools in Congress. When Kennedy lost to Polis, the state teachers union released a statement that didn’t even mention Polis’ name.

— In Connecticut, DFER is supporting Ned Lamont, the Democratic hopeful looking to replace Gov. Dannel Malloy, who’s not seeking reelection. And the organization is pushing for Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s reelection in New York.

— In California, DFER wants to lift Marshall Tuck to victory as state schools superintendent. Tuck is an education reform advocate who has run both charter schools and district schools in Los Angeles. In 2014, he narrowly lost a bid for state schools chief to Tom Torlakson, the current superintendent, who had the support of teachers unions. Tuck will face another Democrat, state Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, in the general election this fall.

— DFER in addition is launching a social media campaignon what it means to be an “education progressive.” The group defines that term as fighting to spend more money on public education while embracing “new ideas” to bring about faster improvement. Some of those ideas, like stronger test-based accountability measures, have faced staunch opposition from progressive groups like teachers unions. But DFER is pushing new polling results that President Shavar Jeffries says illustrate strong support. More on that polling here.

— Jeffries, who recently sat down with Morning Education, stressed that more than half of Democratic primary voters, African American voters and Hispanic voters don’t think public schools are changing or improving fast enough. The poll also found broad support for public school choice — a divisive issue for the Democratic Party — and more equitable funding for public schools, particularly disadvantaged ones. The results stem from two nationwide phone polls of more than 1,000 voters each between May and July of this year. The poll was conducted by consulting firms Benenson Strategy Group and 270 Strategies.

Would it be asking too much to hope that Caitlin Emma and the crack reporters on the Politico team might consider interviewing a critic of billionaire “Reformers.” Maybe a teacher? Say, someone like Steven Singer or Peter Greene or Mark Weber, or other well-informed critics of the intrusion of billionaire know-nothings into education policymaking? Maybe Carol Burris of the Network for Public Education?

In a strong article in the New York Time, Charles Blow notes how many times Trump has singled out women and African-Americans as “dumb” or worse.

He writes:

Donald Trump has a penchant for labeling particular people. It might strike some as just another insult for a petulant urchin of a man who insults everyone with whom he takes issue. But I believe that the nature of his insults to specific kinds of people says something more about the character and nature of the man, something of which he may or may not be aware.

I believe that the fact that he so often attacks the intellectual capacity of women and minorities exposes a racial and gender bias, one that has a long history and a wide acceptance.

On Friday, Trump tweeted:

“Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!”

Lemon, a CNN anchor, was interviewing James about the school James was opening in Akron for at-risk students. During the interview, James accurately noted:

“We’re in a position right now in America, more importantly, where the race thing has taken over because I believe our president is kinda trying to divide us.”

Hover over the irony here: The man trying to help at-risk children by opening doors for them was being attacked by the man who has put children at risk by locking them in cages.

On Thursday at a Pennsylvania rally, Trump repeated the sobriquet he has assigned to California Representative Maxine Waters, calling her, “Very low I.Q. low. Low I.Q.”

This attack on a woman seems to me even more important than the racial question. Might it also have some racial underpinning? Definitely. With his history, Trump requires that all his actions be examined through a racial lens.

If these denigrations of the intelligence of Waters existed in isolation, one might well be able to write them off as fluke or coincidence, but they do not exist in isolation.

A review of the many insults Trump has spouted since he declared his candidacy finds that although he has called many people dumb, or dummies or low I.Q., the targeting of that particular insult at women, including minority women, occurs with curious frequency and is often a singular line of attack against them, rather than one of many.

He has called MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski “dumb as a rock,” “low I.Q.,” and “crazy and very dumb.”

He has called HLN anchor S.E. Cupp and political commentator Ana Navarro “two of the dumbest people in politics,” and has called Cupp “one of the dumber pundits on TV.”

He has called Republican consultant Cheri Jacobus “really dumb” and “a real dummy.”

He has called Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin “one of the dumber bloggers.”

He has said of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that she “has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me.”

He has said of the journalist Mary Katharine Ham that she “isn’t smart enough to know what’s going on at the border.”

He has called the Forbes writer Clare O’Connor a “dummy” multiple times.

He has said that Maria Cardona made Morning Edition contributor Cokie Roberts look “even dumber” than he believed she was on a news show.

He has called Arianna Huffington, founder of HuffPost, a “dummy.”

I read in these comments an overt misogyny that has long existed in this country and the world, one that seeks to undercut the seriousness and cerebral capacity of women, to render them as emotionally unsuitable for deep deliberative analysis….

“Women had campaigned actively for suffrage in America since 1848, when delegates met at Seneca Falls, New York, for the first Woman’s Rights Convention. But convincing a majority of men to empower women was a tall order. Most people, male and female alike, believed that women were biologically unfit for politics. According to one orator at a mass meeting in Albany, New York, ‘A woman’s brain involves emotion rather than intellect, [which] painfully disqualifies her for the sterner duties to be performed by the intellectual faculties.’ Even those who thought women might be capable of political activity, often decided that the family had to come first. ‘Housewives!’ announced a Massachusetts journal, ‘You do not need a ballot to clean out your sink spout.’ ”

And yet, 170 years on, we have a president of the United States questioning women’s intelligence.

Arne Duncan spent seven years as U.S. Secretary of Education, imposing bad ideas every year of his tenure.

Now, having been in charge for longer than almost anyone (except Richard Riley, Clinton’s Secretary of Education), Duncan is smearing U.S. education wherever he goes, all to promote his new book.

Nowhere does he admit that everything he did was a failure.

Evaluating teachers by test scores was a massive failure. States used teacher evaluation as an excuse to level fund their schools, leading to a national teacher shortage and massive disinvestment.

Common Core was a massive failure.

Arne’s school turnaround program was a massive failure.

Most states have dropped out of the federal testing consortia, in which Arne invested $360 million.

Expanding school choice set the basis for Betsy DeVos’ privatization agenda.

Charter schools do not get better results than public schools unless they cherrypick their students and kick out those with low scores.

NAEP scores were flat in 2015 and again in 2017, having absorbed Duncan’s failed policies.

Does he ever learn?

No.

This is something new. The state of Arizona is building tiny homes for teachers since teachers in many districts can’t afford to buy or rent a home in the district where they teach.

Some charter-friendly districts have built “teachers’ villages” to house teachers from Teach for America.

But this is the first I have heard of tiny homes. A tiny home is 400 square feet. It includes a kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. No living room. A tiny home for teachers who don’t expect much in life.

When Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials met with several Russians in Trump Tower in June 2016,the subject was the Magnitsky Act. Not many Americans know what that Act is or why it is named for Magnitsky or who Magnitsky was. When Trump Sr. was asked about the meeting, he said it was about adoptions. Puzzling, no?

When Trump Sr. met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Putin made what Trump called “an incredible offer.” Putin would let Mueller has questions of the 12 Russian intelligence officers he indicted if Trump would send Putin certain people he wanted to interrogate. They included former Ambassador Michael McFaul, who had been an outspoken critic of Putin’s human rights record, and Bill Browder, a businessman who had been associated with Sergei Magnitsky.

To understand what is going on, read this Wikipedia entry about Sergei Magnitsky. It ties together a Magnitsky, Browder, adoptions, and Putin.

Open the link to see the other links and footnotes.

Sergei Magnitsky

Born
Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky
8 April 1972
Odessa, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union
(now Odessa, Ukraine)
Died
16 November 2009 (aged 37)
Matrosskaya Tishina Prison, Moscow, Russia

Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky (Russian: Серге́й Леони́дович Магни́тский; 8 April 1972 – 16 November 2009) was a Russian tax accountant who specialized in anti-corruption activities. His arrest in 2008 and subsequent death after eleven months in police custody generated international media attention and triggered both official and unofficial inquiries into allegations of fraud, theft, and human rights violations in Russia.[1][2][3]

Magnitsky alleged there had been large-scale theft from the Russian state, sanctioned and carried out by Russian officials. He was arrested and eventually died in prison seven days before the expiration of the one-year term during which he could be legally held without trial.[4] In total, Magnitsky served 358 days in Moscow’s Butyrka prison. He developed gall stones, pancreatitis, and a blocked gall bladder, and received inadequate medical care. A human rights council set up by the Kremlin found that he had been physically assaulted shortly before his death.[5][6] His case has become an international cause célèbre.[7]

The U.S. Congress and President Obama enacted the Magnitsky Act at the end of 2012, barring those Russian officials believed to be involved in the lawyer’s death from entering the United States or using its banking system. In response, Russia condemned the Act, claimed Magnitsky was guilty of crimes, and blocked hundreds of adoptions by Americans.[8] In the decade before the Magnitsky Act, 33,000 Russian orphans were adopted by American families internationally.[9] Since the Russian adoption ban, annual adoptions of several hundreds have halted completely, currently remaining at zero.

In early January 2013, the Financial Times wrote that “the Magnitsky case is egregious, well documented and encapsulates the darker side of Putinism”.[10] It endorsed the idea of the EU countries imposing similar sanctions against the implicated Russian officials.[10]

In 2012, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a Sarajevo-based network of investigative centers, successfully traced some of the missing Russian funds to a company owned by Denis Katsyv, the son of Pyotr Katsyv.[11] The money had been invested into a real estate firm that was buying luxury Wall Street apartments in New York City. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a seizure order to recover the apartments in September 2013.[12]

In 2013, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit news organization, obtained records of companies and trusts created by two offshore companies. These included information on at least 23 companies linked to an alleged $230 million tax fraud in Russia, a case that was being investigated by Sergei Magnitsky. The ICIJ investigation also revealed that the husband of one of the Russian tax officials deposited millions in a Swiss bank account set up by one of the offshore companies.[8]

Background

Magnitsky was an auditor at the Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan, working for its owner, Jamison Firestone.[13] He represented the investment advisory firm Hermitage Capital Management, which had been accused of tax evasion and tax fraud by the Russian Interior Ministry.[14]

Over the years of its operation, Hermitage had on a number of occasions supplied to the press information related to corporate and governmental misconduct and corruption within state-owned Russian enterprises.[15] Hermitage’s company co-founder, American Bill Browder, was expelled from Russia in 2005 as a national threat. Browder has said that he represented a threat only “to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats” in Russia, and believed that the ouster was conducted in order to leave his company open for exploitation.[1] In November 2005, Browder had arrived in Moscow to be told his visa had been annulled. He was deported the next day and has not seen his Moscow home since.[7]

On 4 June 2007, Hermitage’s Moscow office was raided by about 20 Ministry of Interior officers. The offices of Firestone Duncan were also raided. The officers had a search warrant alleging that Kamaya, a company administered by Hermitage, had underpaid its taxes. This was highly irregular, as the Russian tax authorities had just confirmed in writing that this company had overpaid its tax. In both cases, the search warrants permitted the seizure of materials related only to Kamaya. But, in both cases the officers illegally seized all the corporate, tax documents and seals for any company that had paid a large amount of Russian taxes, including documents and seals for many of Hermitage’s Russian companies.[16] In October 2007, Browder received word that one of the firms maintained in Moscow had a judgment against it for an alleged unpaid debt of hundreds of millions of dollars. According to Browder, this was the first he had heard of this court case and he did not know the lawyers who represented his company in court.[7] Magnitsky was assigned to investigate the case.

Exposing the scandal

In his investigation, auditor Magnitsky came to believe that the police had given the materials taken during the police raids to organized criminals, who used them to take over three of Hermitage’s Russian companies and who fraudulently reclaimed $230m (£140m) of the taxes previously paid by Hermitage.[4][17] He also claimed police had accused Hermitage of tax evasion solely to justify the police raids, so they could take the materials needed to hijack the Hermitage companies and effect the tax refund fraud. Magnitsky’s testimony implicated police, the judiciary, tax officials, bankers, and the Russian mafia.[4] In spite of the initial dismissal of his claims, Magnitsky’s core allegation that Hermitage had not committed fraud—but had been victimized by it—was eventually validated. A sawmill foreman pleaded guilty in the matter to “fraud by prior collusion”, though the foreman would maintain that police were not part of the plan.[17] Before then, however, Magnitsky became the subject of investigation by one of the policemen against whom he had testified as involved in the fraud. According to Browder, Magnitsky was “the ‘go-to guy’ in Moscow on courts, taxes, fines, anything to do with civil law.”[7]

According to Magnitsky’s investigation, the documents that had been taken by the Russian police in June 2007 were used to forge a change in ownership of Hermitage.[7] The thieves used the forged contracts to claim Hermitage owed $1 billion to shell companies. Unbeknownst to Hermitage, those claims were later authenticated by judges. In every instance, lawyers hired by the thieves to represent Hermitage (unbeknownst to Hermitage) pleaded guilty on the company’s behalf and agreed to the claims, thereby obtaining judgments for debts that did not exist; all while Hermitage officials were unaware of these court proceedings.[7]

The new owner, based in Tatarstan, turned out to be Viktor Markelov, a convicted murderer released two years into his sentence.[7] The company’s fake debt was used to make the companies look unprofitable in order to justify a refund of $230 million in tax that the companies had paid when they had been under Hermitage’s control. The refund was issued Christmas Eve of 2007. It was the largest tax rebate in Russian history.[7]

Hermitage contacted the Russian government with the findings of its investigation. The money, which was not Hermitage’s, belonged to the Russian people. Rather than opening a case against the police and the thieves, the Russian authorities opened a criminal case against Magnitsky.[7]

Custody and death

Magnitsky was arrested and imprisoned at the Butyrka prison in Moscow in November 2008 after being accused of colluding with Hermitage.[4] Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, “denied visits from his family” and “forced into increasingly squalid cells.”[17] He developed gall stones, pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his incarceration.[4] Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan P. Prokopenko later said that he “…did not consider Magnitsky sick… Prisoners often try to pass themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions.”[18]

On 16 November 2009, eight days before he would have had to have been released if he were not brought to trial, Magnitsky died. Prison officials at first attributed his death to a “rupture to the abdominal membrane” and later to a heart attack.[4] Reporters learned that Magnitsky had complained of worsening stomach pain for five days prior to his death and that by the 15th, he was vomiting every three hours, and had a visibly swollen stomach.[18] On the day of his death, the prison physician, believing Magnitsky had a chronic disease, sent him by ambulance to and later transferred him to Matrosskaya Tishina prison’s medical unit, which was equipped to help him.[19] But the surgeon there—who described Magnitsky as “agitated, trying to hide behind a bag and saying people were trying to kill him”—prescribed only a painkiller, and left him to receive a psychiatric evaluation.[18] Magnitsky was found dead in his cell a little over two hours later.

According to Ludmila Alekseeva, leader of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Magnitsky had died from being beaten and tortured by several officers of the Russian Ministry of Interior.[20] The official death certificate stated “closed cerebral cranial injury” as the cause of death (in addition to the other conditions mentioned above), and the post-mortem examination showed numerous bruises and wounds on Magnitsky’s legs and hands. Another post-mortem from 2011 summarized the death as being caused by “traumatic application of the blunt hard object (objects)” as confirmed by “abrasions, ecchymomas, blood effusions into the soft tissues”.[21]

Journalist Owen Matthews described Magnitsky’s suffering in Moscow’s Butyrka prison:

According to [Magnitsky’s] heartbreaking prison diary, investigators repeatedly tried to persuade him to give testimony against Hermitage and drop the accusations against the police and tax authorities. When Magnitsky refused, he was moved to more and more horrible sections of the prison, and ultimately denied the medical treatment which could have saved his life.[22]

Aftermath and official investigations

According to Russian news agency RIA Novosti, Magnitsky’s death “caused public outrage and sparked discussion of the need to improve prison healthcare and to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial in detention prisons.”[23]

An independent investigatory body, the Moscow Public Oversight Commission, indicated in December 2009 that “psychological and physical pressure was exerted upon” Magnitsky.[24] One of the Commissioners said that while she had first believed his death was due to medical negligence, she had developed “the frightening feeling that it was not negligence but that it was, to some extent, as terrible as it is to say, a premeditated murder.”[18]

An official investigation was ordered in November 2009 by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.[25] Russian authorities had not concluded their own investigation as of December 2009, but 20 senior prison officials had already been fired as a result of the case.[19] In December 2009, in two separate decrees, Medvedev fired Alexander Piskunov, deputy head of the Federal Penitentiary Service, and signed a law forbidding the jailing of individuals who are suspected of tax crimes.[26] Magnitsky’s death is also believed to be linked to the firing of Major-General Anatoli Mikhalkin, formerly the head of the Moscow division of the tax crimes department of the Interior Ministry.[27] Mikhalkin was among those accused by Magnitsky of taking part in fraud.

Wikinews has related news: Russian police to ‘check’ officer allegedly involved in large theft and murder
Opalesque TV released a video on 8 February 2010, in which Hermitage Capital Management founder Bill Browder revealed details of Sergei Magnitsky’s ordeal during his 11 months in detention.[28] On 25 June 2010 radio-station Echo of Moscow announced that Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Department for Own Security started investigations against Lieutenant Colonel Artyom Kuznetsov, who has been accused of improper imprisonment of Magnitsky. The investigation was in response to appeal by the Hermitage Capital Management and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[29] In February 2011, the investigation, which had not yet identified any suspects, was extended to May.[30]

In November 2010, Magnitsky was given a posthumous award from Transparency International for integrity. Magnitsky, according to the awards committee, “believed in the rule of law and died for his belief.”[7] A film produced to highlight Magnitsky’s persecution has been shown to the American Congress and British, Canadian, German, Polish, and the European parliaments.[7]

In July 2011, Russia’s Investigate Committee initially acknowledged that Magnitsky died because prison authorities restricted medical care for him.[31] Russian authorities also opened criminal cases against the two doctors who treated him; Dr. Dmitri Kratov, the chief medical officer at Butyrskaya Prison, and Dr. Larisa Litvinova who managed Magnitsky’s treatment towards the end. Dr. Kratov was demoted soon after Magnitsky’s death and was charged with involuntary manslaughter from negligence and is facing five years in prison. Dr. Litvinova may receive up to three years in prison if convicted of causing death through professional negligence.[32] An independent prison watchdog commission reported that the prison doctors were pressured by investigators to deny treatment, and Dr. Litvinova disclosed to the Public Oversight Commission that she was trying to get approval for Magnitsky’s treatment. However, investigators looking into the death of Magnitsky cleared Oleg F. Silchenko, who oversaw the investigation of Magnitsky, of any wrongdoing. Charges of professional negligence against Dr. Litvinova were dropped due to statute of limitations issues.[33] On 23 December 2012, as the trial neared its end, the prosecutor conducting the trial against Dr. Kratov suddenly reversed course and sought acquittal, citing no direct connection between Kratov’s actions and Magnitsky’s death.[34] On 28 December 2012, a Tverskoy court found Kratov not guilty of negligence causing Magnitsky’s death,[35] thus complying with the prosecution’s request.[36]

In 2012 Pavel Karpov, former Russian Interior Ministry officer accused by Magnitsky and Browder of being the main beneficiary of the tax fraud, filed a libel suit in London. He lost it eventually and was ordered to pay over £800’000 to Hermitage Capital Management and, in 2016, was additionally fined for “contempt of court”.[37]

In February 2012, the Russian police announced their intention to resubmit charges of tax evasion against Magnitsky for a second[clarification needed] trial. As pointed out in the press, this was the first posthumous trial in Russia. William F. Browder, who lives in London, was a co-defendant tried in absentia.[38] On 11 July 2013, a court in Moscow found Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion in the posthumous trial. The court also found Magnitsky’s onetime client, the US-born British investor William Browder, guilty of evading some $17 million in taxes.[39]

In 2016 a large criminal investigation was completed in Russia where a number of public officers from tax, security, and customs agencies were involved in large scale VAT carousel fraud schemes, very similar to the one that was used in the fraud against Hermitage Capital, and with the same high-ranking officers providing krysha (Russian: Крыша, “protection”) in both cases. A few low-ranking officers were convicted in the case, but no mid- or high-ranking officers were even indicted, despite total losses to the budget exceeding 20 billion rubles.[40] Since worsening of relations with the European Union after 2014, the version officially promoted in Russia is that Bill Browder’s Hermitage Capital was responsible for tax fraud and that Magnitsky died as result of his conspiracy involving Alexey Navalny, which was highlighted in a 2016 “investigative” film by Andrei Nekrasov. Both Magnitsky’s wife and mother, whose manipulated citations were used in the film, wrote a protest letter criticizing the film for bias and manipulations.[21][41]

On 21 March 2017, the Magnitsky family’s lawyer, Nikolai Gorokhov fell, or was thrown, from the 4th floor of his apartment building in Moscow. Seriously injured, he was taken to hospital by helicopter.[42]

Increasing international reactions

In late 2010, international attention to the matter intensified, with the European Parliament calling for 60 officials believed to be connected to Magnitsky’s death to be banned from entering the European Union, and the Parliament of Canada resolving to deny visas to and freeze the Canadian assets of allegedly involved officials.[43] The EU Parliament also urged members to freeze assets of officials, while similar measures were under consideration in the United States.[44][45] In October 2010, US Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act, which would forbid entry to the US to 60 individuals named in court documents related to the Magnitsky case. McCain said the law would help to “identify those responsible for the death of this Russian patriot, to make their names famous for the whole world to know, and then to hold them accountable for their crimes.”[46] The law is considered analogous to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 in the precedent it hopes to create.[47] In July 2011, the US stated that dozens of Russian officials were barred from entering the United States due to their involvement in the death of Magnitsky.[48]

The Russian Foreign Ministry described the Canadian resolution as “an attempt to pressure the investigators and interfere in the internal affairs of another state”,[49] while in a November statement the head of the lower house’s international committee Konstantin Kosachyov criticized the European Parliament’s conclusions, indicating that sanctions violated the “presumption of innocence” principle and should await the resolution of the Russian court.[50] Bloomberg reported in December that, according to an Interfax story, “identical measures” would be taken by Russia if a European Union ban was put into place.[45] In mid-December, the European Parliament passed the resolution allowing the officials to be banned by member states and their assets to be seized.[51]

In January 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan E. Méndez, opened an investigation into Magnitsky’s treatment and death.[52]

In November 2011 a permanent exhibition with the title “Sergei Magnitsky – witness for justice and democracy in Russia” was opened in the Checkpoint Charlie Museum in Berlin. [53]

In December 2012, the United States passed a law called “Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012” which, among other things, authorized the president to sanction people responsible for violations of human rights in Russia.[54]

Similar acts are being considered in the UK parliament[55] and Irish Dáil.[56]

In December 2012, the Russian parliament passed a bill[57] which was widely regarded by mass media, including Russia’s media,[58] as retaliation for the Magnitsky bill. Russia’s bill signed into law by Putin on 28 December 2012,[59] banned, inter alia, Americans from adopting Russian children.

In the 2013 meetings of the World Economic Forum, the issue surfaced at the highest level, with Reuters reporting that before Medvedev gave his opening speech, some 78 percent of respondents voting in an audience packed with hundreds of Western executives and politicians agreed that Russia’s biggest problem was weak government and corporate governance.[60]

On 1 October 2015, Sergei Magnitsky was posthumously awarded ‘Honourable Mention’ at the Allard Prize for International Integrity ceremony. The Magnitsky family attended the ceremony and responded, “Sergei would have been so proud and humbled by this nomination. He always strived to live his life in the best possible way, with honesty and integrity. Six years after his untimely and heartbreaking death, it is awards such as this that keep Sergei’s memory alive. Being nominated for the Allard Prize gives his whole family a huge sense of pride and once again asserts that his life was not sacrificed in vain. Our whole family is immensely grateful for the attention this award will give to the global Magnitsky justice campaign which emerged from our tragedy.”[61]

Mitchell Robinson of Michigan State University has been debating charter advocates lately. Given the abundant evidence of charter failure in Michigan, they have a lot to defend, but their chief debating point is: Well, what would you do?

Here is his answer.

This morning from the prez, a man who despises the free press:

@realDonaldTrump at 7:38 a.m. tweeting from Bedminster, N.J.: “The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!”

… at 8:35 a.m.: “Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!”

… at 8:45 a.m.: “…Why aren’t Mueller and the 17 Angry Democrats looking at the meetings concerning the Fake Dossier and all of the lying that went on in the FBI and DOJ? This is the most one sided Witch Hunt in the history of our country. Fortunately, the facts are all coming out, and fast!”

… at 8:49 a.m.: “Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt — but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!”

When Leslie Stahl interviewed Betsy DeVos about her home state of Michigan, DeVos changed the subject to Florida.

Michigan’s scores on NAEP have been plummeting for the past decade, since DeVos and her money took charge of education.

The charter sector is not held accountable and it is not transparent.

VICE News takes a look here.