To lie to the Financial Times, to hold Leontyev’s slush fund. Of course you’d sing a different tune. Your story collapsed under investigation, the story Ashurkov laid out in written and oral testimony, and it underpins the Liechtenstein defense.
By the way, Nerses rightly pointed out to me this morning that here Solodkiy slipped up again, admitting that Leontyev was not involved in the “Navalny’s card” project.
Watch closely.
Thread 🧵
In the video on the “Navalny Live” channel titled “How Maxim Katz Fooled You. FBK’s Response,” there is a segment devoted to the card. Here are the screenshots.
From them it follows that communication between Ashurkov and Solodkiy began in March or earlier.
However, in the affidavit he writes the following:
In the same video, Maria Pevchikh says that the Facebook post advertising the card was written by Navalny.
But it is reliably known that he could not have written it, since he was detained, and Anna Veduta was speaking in the media on his behalf. Most likely, she wrote that post.
From Eduard Panteleev’s testimony, it is known that Leontyev was not involved in the project. He was neither the initiator nor even informed about it in principle.
Open the Financial Times. And we see how Solodkiy inserted Leontyev into this story. Correspondence with Ashurkov could not have started before the lecture in April 2012. And the kicker is that, according to Solodkiy’s own Facebook post, in September 2012 he only got acquainted with Zheleznyak and Leontyev.
At the same time, from about the 10s of June 2012, the “Navalny’s card” project interested banker Aleksandr Lebedev, and he worked on trying to implement it until the fall of 2012. And in August, Solodkiy moved to Life.Sreda, which continued to exist even after the bank’s bankruptcy.
And check out this thread — I didn’t write it for nothing, did I?