It appears the Russians have the courage to do something the rest of the developed world does not and that is find the richest man in their country guilty of fraud.
The more I learn of Hillary Clinton and her ties to dubious shadowy Christo-Nazi forces like the Family, which in turn has ties to all sorts of nefarious characters around the globe the less likely I become to ever vote for her for anything.
I despair for my country and the people of my country. Denis Diderot was right. The religous and the wealthy are a curs upon humanity.
So Hillary has her panties in a knot over the Russians convicting Khodorkovsky. Could it be she’s afraid the idea might spread and we might just free the drug prisoners and replace them with the real criminals presently heading corporations?
LYNN BERRY and NATALIYA VASILYEVA | 12/27/10 08:07 PM
MOSCOW — To Russian prosecutors, imprisoned oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is guilty of more crimes: They say he stole nearly $30 billion in oil from his own company and laundered the proceeds. To others, he is a dissident who stood up to the powerful Vladimir Putin.
Whatever he is, Khodorkovsky, once the country’s richest man, could be spending more time in jail. And many here point to one man: Putin.
Khodorkovsky’s conviction on Monday of stealing from his company, Yukos, demonstrated that little has changed under Putin’s successor, President Dmitry Medvedev, despite his promises to strengthen the rule of law and make courts an independent branch of government.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a chorus of political figures in the United States and Europe in condemning the verdict.
It “raises serious questions about selective prosecution and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations,” she said.
BTW notice the language used: “They say he stole nearly $30 billion in oil from his own company and laundered the proceeds.”
Try this instead: “He was convicted of stealing nearly $30 billion in oil from his own company and laundering the proceeds.”
Isn’t it nice how there are two sets of language governing how we speak of crimes, one for those committed by the poor and one for those committed by the rich? There is never much doubt about the guilt of crimes committed by the poor while even a guilty verdict regarding crimes by the rich is treated as a foolish accusation.