Guardian: Manafort Met with Julian Assange

Just published in The Guardian, sources for the article claim that Manafort visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy at least three times, the most recent visit having been in the spring of 2016.

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

A little more detail:

Manafort’s first visit to the embassy took place a year after Assange sought asylum inside, two sources said.

A separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists “Paul Manaford [sic]” as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions “Russians”.

According to two sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated to March.

Manafort’s 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said, adding that the American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.

I don't want to go too far with speculation without some independent corroboration but it would of course be really interesting (assuming the reporting is accurate) that any meeting would have taken place between these two at all, let alone multiple meetings when Manafort was in the employ of the PoR and as he was joining the Trump campaign.

Wasn't Paul Manafort sentenced to jail this Summer, until he's age 94, or something like that, for tax evasion? Mueller should leave the guy alone. $3 Million taxpayer dollars @ month for Mueller to go after tax-evaders... that sucks.

I'm glad Julian Assange had visitors. Many appreciated what his Wiki-leaks organization contributed, to save our country in 2016.

a reply to: theantediluvian
www.mediaite.com...

Wikileaks fired back at a bombshell Guardian report that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in Spring 2016, calling one reporter a “serial fabricator” and denying the meeting ever took place. “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation,” Wikileaks tweeted shortly after the publication of the report. “[Wikileaks] is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.”

originally posted by: carewemust
$3 Million taxpayer dollars @ month for Mueller to go after tax-evaders... that sucks.

And how much money did Manafort surrender as part of his plea deal? Much more than the cost of the Muller investigation. So, this thing is really being funded by Manafort. Us taxpayers will actually come out ahead on this one.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm glad Julian Assange had visitors. Many appreciated what his Wiki-leaks organization contributed, to save our country in 2016.

There is a difference between being a self proclaimed leaker and meeting with campaign officials.

I'm no more thrilled of this report (if true) than the fact that Hillary's campaign hired an ex-MI6 agent to gather intelligence from Russian sources who could have easily been purposefully giving disinformation.

Campaign reform is needed now more than ever, each new story points to that revelation.

Unfortunately with the polarized political atmosphere we find ourselves in, people are too quick to defend "their side" when they do it, and call foul on the other.

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?

a reply to: crtrvt

[Wikileaks] is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

originally posted by: carewemust
$3 Million taxpayer dollars @ month for Mueller to go after tax-evaders... that sucks.

And how much money did Manafort surrender as part of his plea deal? Much more than the cost of the Muller investigation. So, this thing is really being funded by Manafort. Us taxpayers will actually come out ahead on this one.

Yup, Mueller actually bring cash IN thanks to Manafort! Thanks, Paul!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: crtrvt

[Wikileaks] is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.

Wanna bet theres video??

It would be great to hear both sides of the story, but one side has been effectively silenced.

Very damning if true.

Interesting details

a reply to: crtrvt

wikileaks already offered a wager, a hefty one at that

wikileaks is usually correct

a reply to: theantediluvian

Sources say? That's pretty thin. Sorry to see the Guardian going the same route as NYT and all the other politically biased news sources with all of their anonymous sources.

Wikileaks responded with a fairly strong denial that it ever happened.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: crtrvt

wikileaks already offered a wager, a hefty one at that

wikileaks is usually correct

As far as the accuracy of documents they disseminate, they are at 100% last I checked, they vet their sources well.

However, their tweets have been proven to be questionable at times.

I'm not sold this story is true yet, there surely has to be evidence if it is.

Interesting how this article is anchored by a last minute lengthy plea to US readers for $1M in donations.

Is the Guardian really that desperate?...It looks awfully like they're pandering to US leftists with click bait articles...in order to raise emergency funds.

We’re asking our US readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year to report on the stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution will help us reach our goal.
(portion of fund-raising request)

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody

I like Wikileaks’ most recent tweet:

“This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the "Hitler Diaries".

Dang.

I can’t wait to see how this turns out.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Interesting how this article is anchored by a last minute lengthy plea to US readers for $1M in donations.

Is the Guardian really that desperate?...It looks awfully like they're pandering to US leftists with click bait articles...in order to raise emergency funds.

We’re asking our US readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year to report on the stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution will help us reach our goal.
(portion of fund-raising request)

www.theguardian.com...

winning that wager would take care of the issue of "donations"

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Interesting how this article is anchored by a last minute lengthy plea to US readers for $1M in donations.

Is the Guardian really that desperate?...It looks awfully like they're pandering to US leftists with click bait articles...in order to raise emergency funds.

We’re asking our US readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year to report on the stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution will help us reach our goal.
(portion of fund-raising request)

www.theguardian.com...

winning that wager would take care of the issue of "donations"

LOL...yeah. I noticed that too.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Anyone know if the guardian had the stones to take the wager?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Interesting how this article is anchored by a last minute lengthy plea to US readers for $1M in donations.

Is the Guardian really that desperate?...It looks awfully like they're pandering to US leftists with click bait articles...in order to raise emergency funds.

We’re asking our US readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year to report on the stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution will help us reach our goal.
(portion of fund-raising request)

www.theguardian.com...

winning that wager would take care of the issue of "donations"

LOL! or that plea is to make sure they have the money to bet with. Wikileaks came out swinging. I wonder what page the retraction will be printed on? I'm sure Anti will post a retraction when and if it's proven. no lack of integrity there.