If Wikileaks has the docs, I don’t know why they even bother to ask for a vote.
But if the vote does come through as a “yes, release them all” we will be able to make some actual informed opinions, instead of our current fragmentary glimpses.
Supposedly there are 2.6 terabytes of big secrets, but we only have access to 149 of them:
Sputnik is reporting a big infodump of Panamanian shell corps as an anti-Ukraine story:
Some people claim it’s led by USAID, which is really CIA:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/4/is_usaid_the_new_cia_agency
A salty limey is cynical:
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.
The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”
What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include
Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.
Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.
The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.
What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?
What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?
That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?
And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak
Wow, I need a drink of water after all that salt…
But in fact, it appears to be a Soros-led operation. I have no idea who really pulls Soros’ strings, or whether he is big enough to operate without backers.
https://www.occrp.org/en/about-us
“The OCCRP project has been, or is, supported by grants from the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Open Society Foundations. Also on this site are projects funded in part or done in partnership with other organizations including SCOOP, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). OCCRP is a registered name of the Journalism Development Network, a Maryland-based charitable organization (501(c)3).”
directors: Drew Sullivan and Paul Radu
not a lot of info about Paul Radu but Drew Sullivan has posted a few comments here to defend the OCCRP’s reputation:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/13/carpetbagging-crony-capitalism-in-ukraine/
QUOTE:
vulture of critique 
You are completely out of touch Parry, again. You need to get out more. You can’t write about Ukraine from the US. Still with your silly DC conspiracy theories. You are out of your depth here. Too bad you can’t read Ukrainian.
Oh, and by the way, Parry, you dismiss OCCRP as a US government tool and then you quote our story (republished by an NGO) as proof of your conspiracy. Seems like we are on both sides of proving and disproving your conspiracy. Stick to DC and leave the complex world of Ukrainian and Russian politics to the experts.
Wow. What a completely misinformed group of arm chair analysts. There appears to be no conspiracy theory too crazy for your readers who reinforce your odd and misplaced view of the world. Got to get back to reality. Get out of your basements more.
It is funny to see “Drew Sullivan” show up on Consortium News to complain about Mr. Parry when the OCCRP is funded by USAID which is an organization which always seems to be funding opposition protesters and politicians in many different countries which results in “regime change” or “attempted regime change” – Cuba 2010 (ZunZuneo as reported by AP), Egypt where USAID funded Morsi opposition government officials and protesters which resulted in a coup (as reported by Al Jazeera), USAID was also present in Venezuela in 2002 where I believe it funded opposition government officials (Carmona) along with the National Endowment for Democracy which resulted in a temporary coup against Hugo Chavez and now we have Natalie Jaresko, a former USAID employee, an American no doubt, becoming Ukraine’s new Finance Minister. Yet “Drew Sullivan” who is, I believe, a co-founder of the OCCRP and is funded by USAID claims that Mr. Parry is out of touch? Sorry Drew but I would say the fact that USAID is seemingly present in country after country where “regime change” occurs and funding opposition within the country makes anyone or any publication funded by USAID less than trustworthy.