It Is Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video

It's obvious Assange is labeled negatively by the international community, so much so that meeting with him, or being alleged of such can instantly damn you in the public's eye.

Love or hate Assange, he (and Wikileaks) has disseminated lots of information we may otherwise have never seen.

In the case of The Guardian piece that got picked up by many other major news outlets, they say that Manafort held secret talks with Assange on three occasions. What's odd is they don't provide any evidence other than sources.

Rather than touch on all the reasons why this seems odd, I'll let Glenn Greenwald (former Gaurdian journalist) do so for us.

Then there are the glaring omissions in today’s story. As noted, every guest visiting Assange is logged in through a very intricate security system. While admitting that Manafort was never logged in to the embassy, the Guardian waves this glaring hole away with barely any discussion or attempt to explain it: “Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.”

While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalistic voices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, “is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.”

For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments – at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not only are guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, but they also pass through multiple visible cameras – to say nothing of the invisible ones – on their way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange.

The Intercept

Keep in mind the timing, which comes shortly after we learn the US has a sealed indicment on Assange.

I'm not really a Manafort fan, just a fan of the truth, which should they be telling it, I'd like to see evidence.

My guess is this is a two birds with one stone type deal, throw more dirt on Assange by connecting him to US elections.

Either way, I thought I'd share as Glenn is one of my favorite journalists.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

There would be ample information. According to The Guardian (again), Equador's spy operation was vast.

In 2012, Ecuador’s intelligence agency hired an international security company to establish the programme for a monthly cost of $55,000 (£40,000), which was paid from a “special expenses” budget.

The documents describe how the company’s secret agents slept 100 metres (330ft) away from the embassy in a modest basement flat costing £2,800 a month, in one of the most expensive parts of London.

From a control room inside the Ecuadorian embassy, the security team oversaw Assange’s contacts.

His guests went through a security check upon arrival, handing over their passports and mobile phones. The operatives recorded each guest’s passport number and nationality, as well as the purpose of their visit, building up a comprehensive log of everyone Assange met during his stay. According to the documents, the security company sent the confidential list of Assange’s visitors to Ecuador’s government.

www.theguardian.com...

If Manafort did visit, there would be photos, logs, video, passport numbers etc.

If he di he did it without his passport. They already cross-referenced the timeframe the Guardian said and he wasn't there according to the passport office.


Another lie.

Now they need to buy someone in the passport office!!

It is a ridiculous story without sourcing and few facts. Embassies, especially the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, are under 24 7 surveillance, by the host nation, but more than likely by the owners as well as several other interested Countries. They have been parked outside that Embassy waiting for Assange to step outside so they could pluck him up. They would have known for certain that Manafort had been there, and it would have been front page news after the first visit back in what is claimed in the article in 2013 I believe.

Seems to be a cover story for MI6 that is involved in the surveillance of Trumps campaign with Obama, and to disguise their involvement in the Dossier work with friendly British spy Christopher Steel. They sure do not want the FISA warrant documents made public according to some reports. Why not throw some shade on the whole affair, and deflect the coming sunlight. I don't think the Guardian is going to like the way this will end, with the same label as other media have recieved.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Even if he dressed like a hoochie mama and went in through the basement, there's nothing wrong with performing opposition research and getting a scoop. The New York Times and Washington Post have done this for decades.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I came to the same conclusion.

What happens from here though? It's a lie. It'll get brushed aside by other upcoming stories. Nobody will apologize nor be held accountable.

And the BS narrative gets to be seeded into the public's head with no consequences. That's how journalism works these days.

Story already debunked and discredited as a trick.

"They" (the story tellers) would have shown absolute proof for something this enormous 😬🔔

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I doubt Manafort visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The doors to that embassy are probably some of the most watched in the world.

What is known, is that Manafort did visit the Ecuadorian President in Ecuador. Which would be the perfect opportunity for a secure phone call with Assange.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has been looking into a 2017 meeting between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, according to a report that came the same day news broke that Manafort repeatedly met with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Link

I think the source the guardian used may have got that part of the story wrong. Maybe on purpose, maybe not.

a reply to: underwerks

If The Guardian hadn't reported something less than true, they wouldn't be walking back their original story in the face of a potential libel lawsuit from Wikileaks the way they are.

Also, Ecuador has been less than thrilled with Assange in their midst, so why would the President of Ecuador aid and abet him in anything, especially when every power in the world thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the president?

a reply to: underwerks

I think the source the guardian used may have got that part of the story wrong. Maybe on purpose, maybe not.

So you think it's possible they purposely printed a false story?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

If The Guardian hadn't reported something less than true, they wouldn't be walking back their original story in the face of a potential libel lawsuit from Wikileaks the way they are.

Also, Ecuador has been less than thrilled with Assange in their midst, so why would the President of Ecuador aid and abet him in anything, especially when every power in the world thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the president?

Who knows. We could speculate all day on that. What is known and is a fact, is that Manafort did visit the President of Ecuador in Ecuador.

Now, why would the head of the Trump campaign at the time do that? What interests does the Trump campaign have in Ecuador?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: underwerks

I think the source the guardian used may have got that part of the story wrong. Maybe on purpose, maybe not.

So you think it's possible they purposely printed a false story?

I don’t think the Guardian printed a false story on purpose, just that their source gave them information that wasn’t 100% correct.

Why would a newspaper like the guardian intentionally print a story that would without a doubt get found out for being false? They wouldn’t. It’s bad for business.

Maybe their source was someone close to Manafort who gave them false information so that the guardian being called out for lying would dominate the headlines? Instead of the very real story about the meeting in Ecuador that came out shortly afterwards.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

What?

The left is disseminating fake news and phony stories (until proven otherwise) as if they are true and we need to impeach Trump NOW?

Great Scott!

Just kidding, I'm not picking sides. But more and more we are learning that some really powerful and rich people are trying to get rid of Donald Trump.

I guess he's doing something right then?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I knew it smelled as soon as I read they supposedly didn't "log" Mannafort in at the embassy. They have been keeping tabs on Everyone who comes to see Assange.

Unless there is proof to produce, I'm not buying it.

a reply to: underwerks

You can spin that narrative all day.

IT'S CALLED FAKE NEWS.

Learn some true journalism, for god's sake.

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

And you lefties wants to be taken seriously...

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: underwerks

You can spin that narrative all day.

IT'S CALLED FAKE NEWS.

Learn some true journalism, for god's sake.

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

And you lefties wants to be taken seriously...

What narrative? That the Guardian got taken for a ride by a source, as happens sometimes to all news agencies? That isn’t a narrative, it’s reality.

What’s the other option? That a newspaper such as the Guardian intentionally put out a lie that would hurt their credibility and their bottom line? Why would they intentionally smear themselves like that?

That makes no sense.

It just seems that waiting to disclose this now is a bit
suspect. If they had this kind of evidence they would
have used it long ago....imo.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: underwerks

You can spin that narrative all day.

IT'S CALLED FAKE NEWS.

Learn some true journalism, for god's sake.

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

And you lefties wants to be taken seriously...

What narrative? That the Guardian got taken for a ride by a source, as happens sometimes to all news agencies? That isn’t a narrative, it’s reality.

What’s the other option? That a newspaper such as the Guardian intentionally put out a lie that would hurt their credibility and their bottom line? Why would they intentionally smear themselves like that?

That makes no sense.

Not sure if you know, but the appropriate thing to do here is vet the story, then print it. Kind of why this is an issue. If Fox did this, I'd be against it. It's propaganda, not news.

originally posted by: underwerks

I don’t think the Guardian printed a false story on purpose, just that their source gave them information that wasn’t 100% correct.

LOL

Blue Ribbon material.

Needs to be published in the Harvard Gazette 💥🤦‍♀️

a reply to: underwerks

Because the Guardian is currently asking for donations to keep alive... currently they say they need 1 million. (The same amount that the wager between them and Wikileaks is... well played!)

A growing amount of left-wing media is dying and is asking for donations to keep going.

The Guardian had success at it before...

the Guardian, a U.K.-based newspaper, raised $130 million from reader revenues from April 2016 to March 2017.

Now Buzzfeed and The Washington Post are trying the same.

WSJ article

It seems getting money from lefties to keep their dream alive is profitable!