SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Former diplomat challenges 'fake' Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort
The Canary previously reported on criticisms from WikiLeaks and others which stressed that Guardian claims about [former Trump campaign manager Paul] Manafort meeting Assange in 2013, 2015 and March 2016 were false.
WikiLeaks said it was preparing to sue the Guardian on the matter. And Manafort is also considering legal action, saying this story is "totally false and deliberately libellous".
Narváez was initially consul and then first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2010 to July 2018. He has now told The Canary that, to his knowledge, Manafort made no visits at any time during that period. He insisted:
"It is impossible for any visitor to enter the embassy without going through very strict protocols and leaving a clear record: obtaining written approval from the ambassador, registering with security personnel, and leaving a copy of ID. The embassy is the most surveilled on Earth; not only are there cameras positioned on neighbouring buildings recording every visitor, but inside the building every movement is recorded with CCTV cameras, 24/7. In fact, security personnel have always spied on Julian and his visitors. It is simply not possible that Manafort visited the embassy."
takyon: Paul Manafort did, however, speak to the Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno about the potential removal of Julian Assange from the embassy in London:
The President of Ecuador spoke with Paul Manafort about his desire to remove Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, a Manafort spokesperson confirmed Monday. "When Mr. Manafort met with President Moreno of Ecuador to discuss the China Development Fund, the president raised with Mr. Manafort his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador's embassy," Jason Maloni, a Manafort spokesman, told CNN in a statement. "Mr. Manafort listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting," Maloni's statement added. "There was no mention of Russia at the meeting."
The New York Times was first to report that President Lenin Moreno and his aides had expressed their desire to have Assange leave the embassy in at least two meetings with Manafort in exchange for concessions from the US like debt relief, citing three people familiar with the talks. Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy, since 2012.
See also: Manafort denies ever meeting with Assange
Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:52PM (24 children)
Even if publishing HRC's emails were illegal (which it isn't)
Agreed.
even if the US had any jurisdiction over Assange (which it doesn't)
If he committed a crime against a US party doing it over the internet doesn't magically make it not a crime or outside the US's jurisdiction. Actually getting him here to face a trial can be more difficult but is certainly not impossible. See the Huawei story, for reference. (Of course, that would need to be a different offense than merely acting as a journalist. Such as actively participating in the hacking.)
and even if Assange could somehow commit treason against a country he's never been a citizen of,
I don't think he could. And I haven't heard anyone suggesting otherwise, either.
the reason he published the emails in question was because he was coerced with the threat of being forced out of the embassy and into the crosshairs of the entire US security apparatus.
I think your time arrow is backwards on that one. The emails had already been published by the time these discussions were taking place.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:57PM (2 children)
I do find it ironic that he was so afraid of the Dems winning.
The Dem policy was that his publishing of the leaks was protected by the first amendment and the Obama DOJ specifically chose not to go after him.
So he helps the Reps and the very first thing they do is try to extradite his ass.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @01:58AM (1 child)
Perhaps, he acts not in his personal interests, but in the interests of humanity? Yes, I know, the thought is very controversial.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Friday December 07 2018, @05:09AM
After reading the long-form article about him that his ghostwriter wrote (summary & link here [theguardian.com]), I'd say that most of Assange's behavior is in the interest of either getting people's attention, avoiding any consequences arising from his actions, and pacifying what can only be described as paranoia.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:18PM (8 children)
Did he release the emails before, or after, Hillary asked why they couldn't kill him with a drone? If it's before, then there may be some validity to it. When a high level, and very influential, person of the US government is speaking about killing you with their highly advanced tech, there may be some coercion there.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:23PM (7 children)
Did he release the emails before, or after, Hillary asked why they couldn't kill him with a drone?
That's an unproven allegation. [snopes.com]
I thought we weren't supposed to trust anonymous sources.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:32PM (6 children)
There is a difference between unproven and unfounded. Even in that Snopes article there is a reference to actual existing email that came from that meeting. The meeting occurred, the email was written, what is unproven is what was actually said in the meeting. I assume the minutes of meeting are classified, and we won't see them unless we live well past 100 years old.
Maybe unproven, but the sources are hardly "anonymous", and the event they took place at wasn't fictional. Whoever these sources were, they were high level, and referencing facts.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:56PM (3 children)
The meeting occurred, the email was written, what is unproven is what was actually said in the meeting.
You mean this email? Show me where it says they're going to drone Assange:
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @09:17PM (2 children)
That's fucking weasel speak for what she said. There is no reason to include the nonlegal strategies at all. You would just ask what are the possible legal strategies that would be employed? Why specifically mention nonlegal? Was there a question regarding nonlegal strategies and whether they would be used? If you simply wanted to exclude the nonlegal, you would again, just say legal. Legal is intrinsically mutually exclusive with nonlegal.
This makes me very much suspect that somebody was specifically asking about using nonlegal strategies to silence Wikileaks. As if National Security depended on it, and they were discussing extraordinary measures.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)
A legal strategy would be a lawsuit or something.
A nonlegal strategy would be a PR campaign or diplomacy.
Your only evidence that they wanted to drone Assange is something that says nothing about drones or Assange.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @12:40PM
A legal strategy can also be anything that is allowed according to the law.
A non-legal strategy being anything that isn't.
If they truly meant a PR campaign they could've written public opinion or diplomatic or something along the lines. So far the evidence points that the meeting took place and there were discussions about non-legal strategies. The definition of non-legal can be either.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aegis on Friday December 07 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)
So it's wrong to call the Trump admin crooked even though we've convicted five crooks.
But, Killary was planning a drone strike in the middle of freaking London because of rumors and the word "nonlegal."
Got it...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 07 2018, @01:29AM
Who said that, and how is it relevant to whether or not Assange was coerced into releasing emails? Sounds like you are trying to construct support for Trump just because I dislike Hillary, and nothing could be further from the truth. Those are separate situations, and it's possible to call the Trump administration crooked and corrupt whilst simultaneously calling out Hillary for being crooked and assassination prone. Whatever conflict between the two is just your perceptions.
No, the rumor was that she asked (in a way that was more a statement), "Why can't we just drone this guy?". The FACTS are that an email arose from that meeting with the question of legal and nonlegal means at their disposal. Now DeathMonkey wants to interpret nonlegal as not having anything to do with the court systems, and my interpretation is that would be acts judged illegal in the court systems. Sure we don't trust anonymous sources, but anonymous sources like these gave us Water Gate.
Furthermore, you haven't asked whether or not I even held it against her. I don't agree with the U.S government assassinating people at will, especially to silence whistle blowing platforms, but neither am I shocked when the National Security apparatus discusses measures to take him out if he discloses information that could seriously weaken it.
This whole question arose from discussing the motivations of Assange to release HRC's emails, and whether or not he could be coerced by threatening to remove his asylum protections with a large superpower declaring him an enemy of the USA.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @10:59PM (11 children)
Really? When is the USA going to start extraditing to Thailand all those people who have said nasty things about their king on the internet? Or people who draw rude pictures of Mohammad and post them on the internet to any islamic country where doing that is an offense?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @01:32AM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @02:01AM (9 children)
So, for the record, we assume Huawei girl committed a crime in Canada.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:43AM (8 children)
Nope, merely that what she is being arrested for is considered a crime in both Canada and the US.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @05:53AM (7 children)
I can't see much of the difference between mine statement and yours, so let me try it differently. The girl violated Canadian law.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @07:02AM (6 children)
Again, that's not right. She broke a law in the US which was also considered illegal in Canada. That's why she's being extradited to the US rather than tried in Canada.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @07:38AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)
Could you just sense me about to throw your own words in your face? lololol fookin blookin mate!
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:33PM
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @06:57PM (2 children)
I still don't get it, sorry. Let me use an example. Suppose she killed a man in the US. Canada would send her to face a trial in the US because killing is against the law in Canada. If killing would be legal in Canada, my understanding is that she would not be extradited.
Hence my question (sorry for perhaps bad legal lingo) what was that she done which is against the law in Canada. Well, that's perhaps sealed but we assume there is something she did which is against the Canadian law.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 08 2018, @02:15AM (1 child)
Sounds like violation of sanctions against Iran. Canada is on board with those, I gather.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday December 08 2018, @04:54AM
OK, the news just came out. She is accused of lying to banks about Huawei dealings with some Hong Kong company under sanctions back in 2013. They got her on, basically, a fraud. Up to 30 years in prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/technology/huawei-meng-wanzhou-fraud.html [nytimes.com]
Well, this - lying to a bank - would be a crime pretty much anywhere. This is bad as it makes it virtually impossible to settle any time soon.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.