By Heidi Hutchinson
On Vanessa DiGrigoriadis
[Vanessa Grigoriadis wrote a New York Times Magazine article about Nxivm entitled “The Sex Cult that Preached Empowerment”. Published May 30, 2018, it came out after Keith Raniere and Allison Mack were indicted but before Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, and Kathy Russell were indicted. Grigoriadis interviewed Raniere and Bronfman in Mexico probably sometime in late 2017.]
The story was rigged from top to bottom. How does a seasoned investigative journalist not ask the person [Allison Mack] who says she conceived of the branding if she has a brand herself? How does the New York Times fly a reporter to Mexico who isn’t Mexican or Hispanic (but sure looks like she could be)?
How did she miss the fact that there were so few Mexican Nxivm leaders presented to her, that she’s interviewing American Nxivm leaders in Mexico, who say they’re afraid to be there as they may be kidnapped, to quote Clare from the story?
What the hell were they staging an interview in Mexico for at all? To advertise Keith’s kidnap prevention formula to “end violence in Mexico” — because, then, they really do look like stooges set to take the blame for Dennis Burke or some covert arms shipment etc. scheme.
I nearly called Allison’s family when I read that New York Times story to try to warn them to get Allie her own lawyer then and there.
On Anthony Bruce
This is an excellent article, Frank. His smirking, sinister face alone makes me scroll faster every time I pass it. This oozing swamp creature is a mucky, gritty, disgusting bottom feeder of the lowest order. Sorry they sicked him on you and Chitra. Neither of you ever deserved to be on the same planet with the likes of it!
On Barbara and the commodities
Great article, Klaviger.I think you should invite Barbara Bouchey to rebut, in all fairness. She recently insisted to me (and Frank) that the Bronfman’s funds that Keith played the market with were repayable loans, not gifts.
I don’t know what Clare Bronfman believed, probably anything Vanguard and Prefect told her — such as that her dad manipulated the market losses. I remember in the Plyam trial how deftly the Bronfman’s counsel, Bob Crockett, played off those oversight agency warnings to reduce the market holdings — you mentioned — as maybe a sign that Keith’s investment strategy “was” being thwarted – just by the cock of his brow at the jury — with Yuri and Natasha (those shifty “Russians”) somehow in on it.
Guess that’s why guys like Crockett get the big bucks and innocent folks who can’t afford a Crockett, like Joe O’Hara go to prison.
I’m reluctant to say anything about any Keith “penis ownership” lectures you suggest which should have clued Barbara in on the fact that she was not in anything close to an exclusive relationship with Keith, except that Kristin Keefe gave me that same lecture in regards to Gina’s issues with “penis ownership” and “penis envy” when it came to Keith’s cheating —er, polyamorous — ways, too.
It rings true. That became part of the playbook some sincerely took as their bible, and Barbara might have received a stern warning about that —which would be inconsistent with the notion she didn’t know she wasn’t the only one.
But love is blind and Barbara was, maybe still is, in love with the fantasy of Vanguard. She lost what many consider a lot of her own money and stayed on, losing precious time into the last of her child bearing years to the Bluebeard, like so many women did.
Many couples and good men were also near-ruined, as well. It’s good to see Yuri’s smiling, happy face on this post! I hope he and Natalia finally feel fully vindicated.
I imagine Bronfman assumed when repayment was to be made it would just appear
I think you are right about Grigoridis, I never registered the fact the interview was in Mexico, just seals the deal for me that what I read was a PR missive. Hope you had a lovely christmas Heidi 🙂
I did, One. Thanks and really good to have you back! Hope your new year’s off too a good start!
When you don’t repay loans, they become taxable events.
Too right! and you’d expect of a renunciate that they’d neither a borrower nor a lender be -whereas raniere seemed to live to default on everything that was loaned to him, knowledge, peoples trust, affections, of course property and money – A liar and a thief.
A very good snapshot, onewoman. A renunciate, my ass. I bet he had to look that up before he started claiming to be one.
He is a little, petty, greedy, selfish, spoiled boy. He couldn’t man up to anything if his life depended on it. For instance, if I were trying to hide myself, I probably wouldn’t choose a luxury property with a bevy of sex partners / servants. He can’t help himself. He never grew up. Now the spoiled brat child is an adult monster.
Thanks OCD, raniere really is monstrous.
Twilight Zone episode where the adults were terrified of the little boy with paranormal powers
Good to know, thanks. I got a few tip-offs for the IRS among my debtors. JK. Lol.