Let them say!

Last week, the Grimpen quagmire made a dreary sound, and a pair of bubbles surfaced to the surface. The air smelled in the air ...

First in

BBC, then in

At the "foreigner") the new version of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was expressed by the former leader of the deceased-Alexander Gusak, in the past-the head of the 7th department of the development department of criminal organizations of the FSB of Russia. According to Times, “Gusak, who was in the past heading a secret unit, which Litvinenko called the“ death brigade ”, said that the FSB agents were addressed, who believed that their names were disclosed by the British special services.”

The cold head of Alexander Ivanovich tried to observe the cleanliness of the hands:

“I’ll tell you honestly, I didn’t tell any of them that he would go and killed Litvinenko, although one of them (declassified agents) really told me:“ Listen, he did so much, do you want me to kill him? ”Gusak said in an interview with the BBC Newsnight television program.”

But the hot heart did not give: “He was undoubtedly a traitor. He revealed the most sacred that any operational worker has - sources of information. People whom Litvinenko gave to the British special services went in touch and asked how to be further. As a lawyer, I told them that Litvinenko’s actions fell under article 275 of the Criminal Code The punishment of up to 20 years in prison.

Gusak contradicts not only Scotland Yard (who was following the trail and rested on former personnel Chekists) and not only Bolshaya Dmitrovka (who does not know which oligarch to show-from the shores of the Thames or from the land of the Canaanian), but also to himself. November 27, 2006 in

Alexander Ivanovich equally confidently reported to Kommersant: Litvinenko poisoned Chechen militants, it was blood feud for a comrade, whom Alexander Valterovich personally to death to death in 1996 at the Filter at the village of Pervomaisky.

The new version immediately gave rise to bewilderment. Why did exposed spies seeking help from Mr. Gusak? Some, however,

that "the revelation of Mr. Gusak can be introduced to the case of the murder of Litvinenko as a recognition in incitement."

8 February Alexander Gusak

His interview in the program "U -turn" on the air of Echo of Moscow. While the presenters were feverishly dialing Alexander Ivanovich’s number, his nameless colleague phoned the studio, added “negativity” to the Litvinenko characteristic and trampled the “Ekhovites”: what are they raising such incorrect issues, they say about those people, they are discussing the wrong topics, and so on ... for “warm -up”, so to speak.

Someone may be indignant: such as "all my heart devoted to the gray word and gray business" already filled the entire conceivable broadcast, why give the last one?

And for me, on the contrary, let them say!

If they do not interfere, we will learn so much interesting ...

Of course, with one restriction: all this “interesting” does not apply to the “world of things”, but only to the “world of ideas”. What is not discussed at all is the evidence and traces that allow you to put forward some versions of the murder and to confuse others. In Russia, materialism is over: it is exclusively about such subjective substances as "motives". It would seem that the conversation immediately becomes bored. But these "speakers" can be considered from a different angle. As the theologian noted - saying, however, about the matters of completely opposite to discussed in the article - "the words of Paul about Peter tell me more about Paul than about Peter."

Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Putin

: "Litvinenko was fired from the organs. Before that he served in the convoy troops. He did not have any secrets. He was prosecuted for abuse of official position, for beating citizens during the detention, and for theft of explosives. But he was given, in my opinion, three years conditionally."

The "convoy troops" is about the Dzerzhinsky division. No wonder the portrait of Litvinenko was used as a target in the Tira Vityaza, the special forces of this very division, where the speaker Mironov snapped on November 7.

But he dared to Gusak: he says that Litvinenko passed the “agents”, although Putin decided: “There is no media at all a carrier.”

Another former colleague Litvinenko, Gusak and Putin, Deputy Prime Minister Ivanov,

About the same thing: "Litvinenko never had access to any important information. When Putin dismissed Litvinenko, he knew about many cases of violation of the law on his part." And then-the explanation: “The press secretary of the Ministry of Defense clarified the words of Ivanov: the minister meant that Litvinenko was not personally dismissed by Putin, but at the time when he stood at the head of the FSB.”

This reservation is the same as Putin’s words “in my opinion, three years conditionally”, a hint of non-involvement and ignorance. As about Khodorkovsky: "I heard something somewhere somewhere."

I recall a classic dialogue: "Tell me, witness, did you experience a personal hostility for the victim?" - “Yes, I said: I feel such a personal hostility that I can’t eat ...” And after a pause: “Net, he later asked: who is he at all this victim, right?”

But "Kremlin Digger" Elena Tregubova right there

“Ivanova himself:“ Vladimir Putin himself in December 1998-according to the hot traces of the scandal around the “order” for the murder of Berezovsky (press conference on November 17, when a group of Chekists in masks betrayed the “order” of publicity), ”I fired Litvinenko and dissolved the unit in which he worked. ... FSB officers should not act at press conferences-this is not their work. And they should not make internal scandals to the public. "

So “who he is, this victim,” Putin knew well, and “personal hostility to the victim” took place.

What did Alexander Gusak add to this knowledge, speaking on the radio?

In the dry residue - a rima of the old thieves song: “He promised me the money of the francs / and the pearl glass / so that I would open him a booze / Soviet plant plan. / Sovetskaya Malina / gathered for advice, / Sovetskaya Malina / The enemy said“ No! ”

According to the former Litvinenkovsky agent, “from a negative environment”, someone was not at all the one who was supposed to. And the agent did not go to the "curators", but to a backward security officer ...

However, the versions of Alexander Gusak - that Litvinenko could have killed his former agents “from a negative environment”, or Chechens “on blood feud” - remained “versions”, not receiving any support in the form of “passwords, addresses, appearances”. Not only did Gusak create a “conflict of versions” with the second performance, he added many contradictions to his old “testimony”.

But from the performance of the Gusak and other former Chekists (which, as you know, are not former), you can draw a lot of curious. Alexander Ivanovich tried to deny, and in the end he confirmed: in 1998, someone from the Feesbury authorities really led him with him as the head of the department about the elimination of Berezovsky. And if such an order came from the director of the FSB, Gusak would have fulfilled him, because he was always an executive officer.

There would be more interviews with such executive officers! Let them say!

More recently, public attention was drawn to hypothetical

, since the nineties that existed in Russia. Alexander Gusak, trying to refute the old accusations of this kind, emanating from his subordinate, presented us with another proof!

The Chechens, according to Gusak, cannot earn a living other than hired killers: "I assume as a moral factor that Chechens could do this, directly those Chechens who live in London. Many are trying to somehow earn ... performers ..."

And the instrument of murder to the Chechens put an eternal enemy: "The Chechens could receive polonies from the Americans." Insidious - shit us with our own polonium!

Gusak and colleagues had a saying. It’s by no means strange for the FSB officer, “using the documents, the certificate of the FSB officer, walk around the kiosks and knock out money” (this, according to Gusak, suspected Mikhail Trepashkin), to “abuse, beating, and embezzlement” (Putin about Litvinenko).

Or just act as if you are in the pavilion, on the set of the series about steep Chekists-the screenwriter of which did not look into either the law “On operational-search activity” or in the codes.

Or torture to the death of people at a filtration point.

Only the investigation as such is impossible for the Chekist - the investigation cannot but comply with the political order. Therefore, the British police are not interested in the versions of the Husak about the Americans who put the Polonia: "What do you think, the British will be interested? In any case, where the interests of the state are present, the same Scotland Yard will do as they say. Understand?"

And the betrayal for them, it turns out, is natural. Gusak repeated about Litvinenko three times: "Alexander Valterovich, when he escaped abroad, naturally handed over the agents that was in touch. To stay in England, he had to hand over something to them. ... Naturally, they would give him the same citizenship, not to be given to the Russian authorities, of course, he also handed over the agents."

But they revenge for betrayal: "He was undoubtedly a traitor. In Soviet times, Litvinenko would be executed." If you violate the first commandment of the "Code of Silence": "Some issues had to be resolved in your department, but not to be publicized and not put out for a general discussion."

So let them say!

What, in fact, are the numerous "negative characteristics" of Alexander Litvinenko are directed? Not on the same to discredit the deceased among his own - there he is already considered a "traitor."

They are intended for me with you. For those who are critical of all incoming, and even more so imposed information. And, of course, for those "democrats" that they perceive Alexander Litvinenko as a positive hero, and his books - if not as a breakthrough to truth, then, at least as a correction of Krivda.

In fact, "sources" discredit themselves. They beliefly show an “national security agent” as a “typical person in typical circumstances”. And this image convinces of something. Well, as if, in the framework of the “fight against totalitarian sects” in Jerusalem, first a colleague of Iztar Levia Matvey. And he would describe his atrocities. And then Savla’s ally spoke from Tars, the pogrom, who had been stones of retreating from Yahweh and went beyond the false month. Of their speeches, we most likely would not have learned anything about the apostles. But they would definitely find out a lot about the Pharisees themselves.

And therefore - let them say!