The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
The Navalny Verdict
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Livestream in Russian, English.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE6v0N1uEf4

He’s been found guilty, as expected. The main question is what the sentence will be: Suspended, or a real term. Here is my prediction (which on developments so far might well turn out to be awfully wrong).

Discuss.

UPDATE: Even if he is found guilty and sentenced, he still has the choice of appealing his sentence. This will give him enough time to contest the Moscow elections.

(Republished from Da Russophile by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Law, Navalny Affair, Society 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
11 Comments to "The Navalny Verdict"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. FWIW, I don’t agree with the verdict. At worst, what he did with Ofitserov was punishable by Article 165, not Article 160 of which he was found guilty. One can also reasonably argue that he was only guitly of overstepping his authority as a pro bono adviser, which carries only minor legal consequences.

  2. What I don’t get are the loud calls for a direct Kremlin intervention into these cases (same song and dance as when the PR stuff ran rampant). Note that by saying this I do not discount the distinct possibility of just conclusions should such a case occur (and vice versa – unjust, and perhaps cases orchestrated top-down from the beginning as many will contend, though all too often those allegations are rather silly…). But wouldn’t that only serve to confirm a thoroughly corrupt state? Say spin doctors residing in the halls of might advising the government on when to delve into legal cases and directly “sort things out” at their own discretion in order to bolster their image to shallow foreign media, I mean… Say what?

    Is the solution to “bad” corruption “good” corruption?

    Now, it’s fairly well established that the Kremlin (and Russia as a whole) has a pretty bad grip on “public relations” and that department could definitely use some good advise (or rather, a total change of mentality), but still, this is a common implied request that I do not understand in the scope of things.

    Pardon my possible short-sightedness, I’m fairly new to these political games and I am by no means educated on the matter so I might just come across as sounding stupid. If that’s the case – do enlighten me!

    • Replies: @marknesop
    Well said, Joseph; the same quackers who pontificate that Russia does not have the rule of law are the same who demand that its decisions be overturned on each occasion that those decisions do not meet with their approval. What they mean is that the rule of law in Russia should be informed by western guidance and direction.

    It is not so much that the Russian government is bad at PR - although that is part of the problem - as it is that western English-speaking networks either will not carry the positions taken by the government, or report them with tongue-in-cheek spin which makes it obvious the speaker believes the opinion offered is stupid, a lie or a stupid lie.

  3. My prediction, which appeared on Kremlin Stooge, is that he would be found guilty and would be sentenced for 5 years. I got Navalny’s sentence exactly right. I thought Ofitserov would get 3 years, so I was out by one year for that one. I am sorry for Ofitserov because I think Navalny led him on.

    As I also pointed out 5 years is exactly in line with the sort of sentence a first time offender who pleaded not guilty but who was convicted for a like offence would get in Britain.

    The only pertinent question in this case is whether Navalny was properly convicted following a fair trial. I have been following the trial carefully on Kremlin Stooge. Nothing about the trial suggests to me that it was in any way unfair. I am afraid I think Navalny was properly convicted and that the charge against him was the correct one and that it was properly made out. Certainly he did wildly overstep his mark as a pro bono adviser but I think the facts go far beyond that and substantiate the charge. Navalny was given an opportunity during the trial to provide a plausible explanation of the facts that would exculpate him of the charge but he not only failed to do so but the explanation he did give was in places either obviously untrue or simply incredible.

    If I can find the time (difficult at the moment) I am going to try and write a comment on my blog about this case. I can’t guarantee that.

    • Replies: @Mark Sleboda
    Please do write an analysis up!
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Thirded.

    VLK ended up in debt to Kirovles to the tune of $40K when it was folded up, IIRC. So there is a case for Article 165 ("causing financial loss by way of deceit and misuse of trust").

    What I find difficult to comprehend is how exactly how he was could have been subject to Article 160 - "theft," and to the full 15 million rubles to boot.

  4. Was Navalny allowed to call any witnesses for the defense?

    Doug M.

    • Replies: @Alexander Mercouris
    Dear Doug,

    Yes he was, one of them being Maria Gaidar (the daughter of the former acting Prime Minister) who was also a pro bono adviser for the Kirov Region. He was also allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and did so himself, which since he is not experienced in cross examination I thought was a mistake. He did this despite having a legal team to support him

  5. @Doug M.
    Was Navalny allowed to call any witnesses for the defense?


    Doug M.

    Dear Doug,

    Yes he was, one of them being Maria Gaidar (the daughter of the former acting Prime Minister) who was also a pro bono adviser for the Kirov Region. He was also allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and did so himself, which since he is not experienced in cross examination I thought was a mistake. He did this despite having a legal team to support him

  6. @Alexander Mercouris
    My prediction, which appeared on Kremlin Stooge, is that he would be found guilty and would be sentenced for 5 years. I got Navalny's sentence exactly right. I thought Ofitserov would get 3 years, so I was out by one year for that one. I am sorry for Ofitserov because I think Navalny led him on.

    As I also pointed out 5 years is exactly in line with the sort of sentence a first time offender who pleaded not guilty but who was convicted for a like offence would get in Britain.

    The only pertinent question in this case is whether Navalny was properly convicted following a fair trial. I have been following the trial carefully on Kremlin Stooge. Nothing about the trial suggests to me that it was in any way unfair. I am afraid I think Navalny was properly convicted and that the charge against him was the correct one and that it was properly made out. Certainly he did wildly overstep his mark as a pro bono adviser but I think the facts go far beyond that and substantiate the charge. Navalny was given an opportunity during the trial to provide a plausible explanation of the facts that would exculpate him of the charge but he not only failed to do so but the explanation he did give was in places either obviously untrue or simply incredible.

    If I can find the time (difficult at the moment) I am going to try and write a comment on my blog about this case. I can't guarantee that.

    Please do write an analysis up!

    • Replies: @Alexander Mercouris
    I will definitely try Mark.
  7. @Mark Sleboda
    Please do write an analysis up!

    I will definitely try Mark.

    • Replies: @Robert
    Seconded please do. Might help educate certain people in London.
  8. @Joseph
    What I don't get are the loud calls for a direct Kremlin intervention into these cases (same song and dance as when the PR stuff ran rampant). Note that by saying this I do not discount the distinct possibility of just conclusions should such a case occur (and vice versa - unjust, and perhaps cases orchestrated top-down from the beginning as many will contend, though all too often those allegations are rather silly...). But wouldn't that only serve to confirm a thoroughly corrupt state? Say spin doctors residing in the halls of might advising the government on when to delve into legal cases and directly "sort things out" at their own discretion in order to bolster their image to shallow foreign media, I mean... Say what?

    Is the solution to "bad" corruption "good" corruption?

    Now, it's fairly well established that the Kremlin (and Russia as a whole) has a pretty bad grip on "public relations" and that department could definitely use some good advise (or rather, a total change of mentality), but still, this is a common implied request that I do not understand in the scope of things.

    Pardon my possible short-sightedness, I'm fairly new to these political games and I am by no means educated on the matter so I might just come across as sounding stupid. If that's the case - do enlighten me!

    Well said, Joseph; the same quackers who pontificate that Russia does not have the rule of law are the same who demand that its decisions be overturned on each occasion that those decisions do not meet with their approval. What they mean is that the rule of law in Russia should be informed by western guidance and direction.

    It is not so much that the Russian government is bad at PR – although that is part of the problem – as it is that western English-speaking networks either will not carry the positions taken by the government, or report them with tongue-in-cheek spin which makes it obvious the speaker believes the opinion offered is stupid, a lie or a stupid lie.

    • Replies: @Hunter
    Exactly. We see the same thing with regards to Ukraine; accusations that Ukraine doesn't have the rule of law and that the judiciary is corrupt but then calls for Ukraine's government to interfere in the judicial process in order to "free a princess". It's that schizophrenia exhibiting itself again I would think.
  9. @Alexander Mercouris
    I will definitely try Mark.

    Seconded please do. Might help educate certain people in London.

  10. @Alexander Mercouris
    My prediction, which appeared on Kremlin Stooge, is that he would be found guilty and would be sentenced for 5 years. I got Navalny's sentence exactly right. I thought Ofitserov would get 3 years, so I was out by one year for that one. I am sorry for Ofitserov because I think Navalny led him on.

    As I also pointed out 5 years is exactly in line with the sort of sentence a first time offender who pleaded not guilty but who was convicted for a like offence would get in Britain.

    The only pertinent question in this case is whether Navalny was properly convicted following a fair trial. I have been following the trial carefully on Kremlin Stooge. Nothing about the trial suggests to me that it was in any way unfair. I am afraid I think Navalny was properly convicted and that the charge against him was the correct one and that it was properly made out. Certainly he did wildly overstep his mark as a pro bono adviser but I think the facts go far beyond that and substantiate the charge. Navalny was given an opportunity during the trial to provide a plausible explanation of the facts that would exculpate him of the charge but he not only failed to do so but the explanation he did give was in places either obviously untrue or simply incredible.

    If I can find the time (difficult at the moment) I am going to try and write a comment on my blog about this case. I can't guarantee that.

    Thirded.

    VLK ended up in debt to Kirovles to the tune of $40K when it was folded up, IIRC. So there is a case for Article 165 (“causing financial loss by way of deceit and misuse of trust”).

    What I find difficult to comprehend is how exactly how he was could have been subject to Article 160 – “theft,” and to the full 15 million rubles to boot.

  11. @marknesop
    Well said, Joseph; the same quackers who pontificate that Russia does not have the rule of law are the same who demand that its decisions be overturned on each occasion that those decisions do not meet with their approval. What they mean is that the rule of law in Russia should be informed by western guidance and direction.

    It is not so much that the Russian government is bad at PR - although that is part of the problem - as it is that western English-speaking networks either will not carry the positions taken by the government, or report them with tongue-in-cheek spin which makes it obvious the speaker believes the opinion offered is stupid, a lie or a stupid lie.

    Exactly. We see the same thing with regards to Ukraine; accusations that Ukraine doesn’t have the rule of law and that the judiciary is corrupt but then calls for Ukraine’s government to interfere in the judicial process in order to “free a princess”. It’s that schizophrenia exhibiting itself again I would think.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS