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: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:24PM (2 children)
Once again, roughly 95% of people vote for the major parties. Here, the choices were Trump or Clinton. Saying it was a "mistake" implies that there was a better choice out there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
Oh sheeeit!
Some tiny bit of contrition from khallow!!!
You just made my day to see the crack in the wall finally go all the way to the ceiling.
I think this is the first example of true regret, though teeny tiny and still trying to apologize for itself.
To address your little self-excusing bullshit, while I dislike Clinton and didn't vote for her because she fucked over Sanders; it is still clear that Clinton would have been better for the US. Trump was a joke who made it by blatantly lying and manipulating conservative voters and if you paid any attention to his history you would have realized that. Voting for Trump was a mistake even though Clinton did not deserve to win either. She was truly the lesser of two evils. Oh, and the ever more likely reality that there was indeed collusion with Russia to influence the election.
Now I get that you will want to disagree. I get that. However, you could have disagreed up until about 6 months ago at minimum without looking like an idiot. To disagree at this point ignores the massive investigation that had zero convictions for HRC compared to the multiple convictions of Trump's administration/campaign. Just admit you got fooled by some good propaganda that worked the conservative anger response and stop being a pussy about it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:29PM
And this is "clear" why? I get that you dislike Trump somewhat more than Clinton. So what?
Now I get that you will want to disagree. I get that. However, you could have disagreed up until about 6 months ago at minimum without looking like an idiot. To disagree at this point ignores the massive investigation that had zero convictions for HRC compared to the multiple convictions of Trump's administration/campaign. Just admit you got fooled by some good propaganda that worked the conservative anger response and stop being a pussy about it
Of course, I disagree. There's no convictions of Clinton despite the strong evidence that she committed multiple felonies - the FBI investigation even notes some of those, but chooses to classify them as not criminal activities. Not prosecuting criminal acts, is a high level of corruption. Meanwhile all that is had on Trump are coincidences, some which may have been staged by some on the Democrat side or by the FBI. Clinton also has a long established habit of lying to her constituents, such as when attacking women who had been sexually assaulted by her husband.
And I'm sure that there would be condescending conservatives talking about how much better Trump would be right now, if Clinton had been elected.