Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday December 06 2018, @05:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the watch-the-front-door dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 07 2018, @01:29AM

    by edIII (791) on Friday December 07 2018, @01:29AM (#770978)

    So it's wrong to call the Trump admin crooked even though we've convicted five crooks.

    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.

    But, Killary was planning a drone strike in the middle of freaking London because of rumors and the word "nonlegal."

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2