Guardian: Manafort Met with Julian Assange

I’m going to withhold judgement on this one until there is more evidence. The timing strikes me as a little too convenient.

originally posted by: soundguy
I’m going to withhold judgement on this one until there is more evidence. The timing strikes me as a little too convenient.

Or, any evidence at all.

With Manafort, Corsi and Stone biting back, I think Mueller is feeling desperate.

originally posted by: dothedew
Have you seen the "Counter" news from wikileaks, stating that they are putting their entire reputation on the fact that the Guardian Article is 100% BS? They used unnamed sources, no credible evidence, nothing to back up any of these accusations, etc. in Wikileaks own words:

WikiLeaks has since responded to the report by declaring its publication as the moment The Guardian let a "serial fabricator" "totally destroy" the paper's credibility. WikiLeaks is so confident of its claim, that it announced it's willing to put its money — and Assange's life — on the table.

Link here: www.dailywire.com...

IF the Guardian is being honest...it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking WL's bet.
It sounds like it could really use the money...AND the credibility.

SO...
WHY hasn't The Guardian taken this bet...and WHY is The Guardian already walking back it's article?


This should tell everyone here EVERYTHING they need to know about this dubious story.

originally posted by: Witness2008
The Guardian is already walking back the original article. Funny stuff.
News Sniffer has the changes highlighted for anyone interested.
www.newssniffer.co.uk...

Good catch. Even my local news is spreading this BS.

a reply to: projectvxn

those "changes" are interesting
they make the "story" essentially a work of fiction

a reply to: shooterbrody

Pretty sure it was a work of fiction before, but now the guardian doesn't have to defend its lies and can pass this garbage off as an opinion piece.

Market Watch is carrying the story as if it is absolute truth.

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign manager, held secret talks with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian reported Tuesday.

www.marketwatch.com...

I'm speechless as to how fast these stories spread. And not one of these outlets thought to research, even a little, the accuracy.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Wikileaks has them in a Catch-22 and they know it. If The Guardian doesn't come forward with what they have they lose their credibility. But if The Guardian comes forward and betrays the trust of their sources by naming names then they also lose all credibility as a news outlet.

Definitely a well played move on Wikileaks' part. Even if the Guardian article is 100% legit Wikileaks knows that there's nothing the Guardian can actually do to defend themselves. By calling them out in this way it will make everyone think the Guardian is lying even if that isn't the case.

Found on wikileaks twitter.

WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story "Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy" -- which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news.

Let's see how this spreads. I suspect not as far, wide and fast as the original story.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

Wikileaks has them in a Catch-22 and they know it. If The Guardian doesn't come forward with what they have they lose their credibility. But if The Guardian comes forward and betrays the trust of their sources by naming names then they also lose all credibility as a news outlet.

Definitely a well played move on Wikileaks' part. Even if the Guardian article is 100% legit Wikileaks knows that there's nothing the Guardian can actually do to defend themselves. By calling them out in this way it will make everyone think the Guardian is lying even if that isn't the case.

Or...
The Guardian IS actually lying...which seems much more likely.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

Wikileaks has them in a Catch-22 and they know it. If The Guardian doesn't come forward with what they have they lose their credibility. But if The Guardian comes forward and betrays the trust of their sources by naming names then they also lose all credibility as a news outlet.

Definitely a well played move on Wikileaks' part. Even if the Guardian article is 100% legit Wikileaks knows that there's nothing the Guardian can actually do to defend themselves. By calling them out in this way it will make everyone think the Guardian is lying even if that isn't the case.

You know, here is the newer article from the Guardian...

www.newssniffer.co.uk...

a reply to: theantediluvian

A timeline, I stole from a Reddit poster.

2013: Manafort and Assange meet in London, according to the Guardian. At the time, Manafort’s clients included the president of Ukraine and his political party. Former president Viktor Yanukovych was an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, ousted from office in 2014 during protests against his government. Putin helped Yanukovych escape to Russia, where he’s lived ever since.

2015: Manafort and Assange meet in London again, the Guardian reports. Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in that city since 2012, making it easier to determine those with whom he’s held meetings. At least one meeting with Manafort wasn’t logged by the embassy, though, according to the Guardian.

It’s not clear when the alleged meeting in 2015 occurred. Manafort didn’t join the Trump campaign until the following year, but Trump announced his candidacy that summer.

This same year, according to the indictment against the Russian intelligence officers, Russia accesses information from individuals associated with the Republican Party.

Feb. 29, 2016: Manafort makes his first outreach to Trump’s campaign, pitching himself as an outsider to D.C. after meeting with Thomas Barrack, an adviser to Trump. Trump requested a meeting with Manafort at some point afterward.

March 2016: The Guardian reports that Assange and Manafort meet in London.

The timing of this alleged meeting is interesting. In the middle of the month, Russian hackers allegedly began probing the DNC network for vulnerabilities. At the end of the month, Podesta’s email is accessed after he clicks on an email giving hackers access to his account.

March 28, 2016: As hackers believed to be working for Russian intelligence are attempting to hack other Clinton campaign staffers' emails, Manafort is hired by the Trump campaign to manage the delegate process at the convention. In addition to the connection through Barrack, Manafort is recommended by his former business partner, Roger Stone -- himself a longtime adviser to Trump.

April 6, 2016: Hackers allegedly linked to Russian intelligence gain credentials for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from an unwitting employee.

April 11, 2016: Manafort emails his longtime aide Konstantin Kilimnik, based in Ukraine. Kilimnik, who was indicted by Mueller’s grand jury in June for obstruction of justice, is believed to have links to Russian intelligence. In the April 2016 email, Manafort asks Kilimnik if his longtime client Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch sanctioned by the U.S. government, is aware of media coverage of Manafort’s new position. Deripaska and Manafort had been embroiled in a business dispute for years.

"How do we use to get whole?” Manafort asks Kilimnik.

April 18, 2016: Hackers route through the DCCC to access the DNC network. They set up a domain called DCLeaks that will eventually be used to distribute hacked material. The theft of material continues for weeks.

It's important to note at this point that there is no demonstrated relationship between Assange and the hackers alleged to be working for Russian intelligence who have begun to obtain the material that WikiLeaks would ultimately release.

April 26, 2016: George Papadopoulos, an adviser to the Trump campaign, is told by a Russia-linked professor in London that the Russians have “thousands of emails” that serve as “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos emails campaign staff the next day, indicating that he has “interesting messages” to share from his contacts.

June 7, 2016: Manafort and Donald Trump Jr. speak by phone multiple times as Trump Jr. is working to set up a meeting between campaign staff and a Kremlin-linked attorney who Trump Jr. believes has incriminating information about Clinton. After speaking with Manafort and his brother-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump Jr. sets up a meeting on June 9 at 3 p.m. at Trump Tower.

June 8, 2016: DCLeaks launches, including information about Clinton and George Soros.

June 9, 2016: The Trump Tower meeting occurs. Manafort attends and takes notes.

June 12, 2016: In an interview on British television, Assange for the first time mentions having emails related to Clinton. The organization had “accumulated a large cache of information about the Democratic presidential nominee that could be used to bring an indictment against her,” according to ITV.

Assange appears to be referring to emails from Clinton's private server, including some that had already been publicly released.

June 14, 2016: The Post reports that hackers believed to be connected to Russia have accessed the DNC network. Apparently in response, the hackers establish a persona dubbed “Guccifer 2.0” who purports to be the sole hacker involved, based in Romania.

June 20, 2016: Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele files the first of a series of reports alleging a connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference effort. It alleges that Russian intelligence had a dossier of compromising material on Clinton and that Russia had been passing compromising information to the Trump campaign about his competitors.

June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 to ask that the hacker(s) “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” This contact apparently occurs over Twitter, suggesting Assange’s involvement. With the Democratic convention looming, WikiLeaks requests information about Clinton that could be used to foster “conflict between bernie and hillary.”

July 7, 2016: Manafort contacts Kilimnik again to invite the oligarch Deripaska to get a private briefing on the campaign.

The same day, another campaign adviser named Carter Page travels to Russia to give a speech. The next day, he sends a memo to campaign staff with an overview of his travel. It reads, in part, “Russian Deputy Prime Minister and [New Economic School] Board Member Arkadiy Dvorkovich also spoke before the event. In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump and a desire to work together toward devising better solutions in response to the vast range of current international problems.”

July 14, 2016: The hackers send a file to WikiLeaks with instructions on accessing the archive of DNC documents.

July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirms access to the DNC files. It begins publishing them on July 22, shortly before the Democratic convention.

July 19, 2016: Steele files a report alleging that Page met with senior Russian officials while in Moscow, along with a representative of the oil and gas company Rosneft. Page’s contacts with Dvorkovich are only revealed publicly in 2017.

July 27, 2016: At a news conference, Trump asks Russia to release emails stolen from Clinton’s private email server. That same day, Russian hackers attempt to access the Clinton server, according to the Mueller indictment.

August 2016: In an undated report apparently filed in early August, Steele alleges that Manafort is at the center of efforts by the Trump campaign to coordinate with the Russians. It alleges “a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between [the campaign] and the Russian leadership,” that is “managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries.”

originally posted by: crtrvt
Holy crap. So this is why they dont want the Assange indictments unsealed yet! And also why trumps been on a Mueller rampage again today. Walls are closing in, how is this not a huge smoking gun?

If they met, what was gained that we haven't already seen/heard? Must not have been all that much, because if the walls were closing in, it'd be used right about now wouldn't?

Not much of a smoking gun.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: crtrvt

wikileaks already offered a wager, a hefty one at that

wikileaks is usually correct

The Ecuadorean released the Embassy visitor logs which showed the visits. The Equadoreans gave the logs to Mueller first . This is probably tied in to the recent claim that Manafort violated his plea agreement by lying to investigators. Manafort probably claimed he never met with Assange, And then Mueller gets the Embassy logs and perhaps videos and audio tapes. Equador's security service (Secretaría Nacional de Inteligencia, SENAIN) is top flight and would have taped everything in the consular offices. This may be the smoking gun.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: crtrvt

wikileaks already offered a wager, a hefty one at that

wikileaks is usually correct

The Ecuadorean released the Embassy visitor logs which showed the visits. The Equadoreans gave the logs to Mueller first . This is probably tied in to the recent claim that Manafort violated his plea agreement by lying to investigators. Manafort probably claimed he never met with Assange, And then Mueller gets the Embassy logs and perhaps videos and audio tapes. Equador's security service (Secretaría Nacional de Inteligencia, SENAIN) is top flight and would have taped everything in the consular offices. This may be the smoking gun.

Sources bro.

Also, Mueller lost his key witness with this. Let that sink in.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

Wikileaks has them in a Catch-22 and they know it. If The Guardian doesn't come forward with what they have they lose their credibility. But if The Guardian comes forward and betrays the trust of their sources by naming names then they also lose all credibility as a news outlet.

Definitely a well played move on Wikileaks' part. Even if the Guardian article is 100% legit Wikileaks knows that there's nothing the Guardian can actually do to defend themselves. By calling them out in this way it will make everyone think the Guardian is lying even if that isn't the case.

Or...
The Guardian IS actually lying...which seems much more likely.

With several hours having passed now, no other outlets have independently corroborated any of the details. I doubt that "The Guardian" is lying but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they've been taken for a ride by their sources.

As I said earlier, it's really odd that this would just be coming to light now. There should be ample evidence if this were the case — visitor logs, video, etc from the Ecuadorians for one and for another, I'm sure the embassy is under surveillance by the British. There'd also be records of Manafort traveling to/from London.

And of course it seems exceptionally unlikely that these alleged visits would escape the notice of the Mueller team.

At any rate, I'm increasingly skeptical now but it's still a little hard to believe the Guardian editors would publish something this explosive without vetting the hell out of the sources.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Also, Mueller lost his key witness with this. Let that sink in.

This is an odd statement. Manafort wasn't charged with anything involving Russian election meddling and I assume you're of the opinion that there was no coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

So what does that leave him to be a "key witness" for?

I'm just curious what you're happy about.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Pedophile Jeffery Epstein was an Informant for Herr Mueller when he was Head of the F.B.I. . He is now under fire for Dealing with a Known Sex Offender . Herr Mueller is Dirtier than a Five Year Old in a Mud Pit . The Destroyer of Lives will have his OWN Under Scrutiny Real SOON .,...




(((+)))

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Oh yeah, Trump's friend, Epstein.

I'm wondering if this isn't some plot by the Ecuadorian government, which really doesn't seem pleased to still be hosting Assange.

Consider that it's been about a month since Assange announced that he was suing the Ecuadorian government for violating his rights.

Also interesting, notice from the byline:

Luke Harding and Dan Collyns in Quito

Maybe they planted a story as a warning to Assange?