Ex-Trump campaign head Manafort denies ever meeting with WikiLeaks' Assange

By Sarah N. Lynch

 

FILE PHOTO: Former Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort leaves U.S. Federal Court after being arraigned on twelve federal charges in the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Washington, U.S. October 30, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, staunchly denied ever meeting with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday, after the Guardian newspaper published a story alleging the two met at least three times, including once in 2016.

 

“This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him," Manafort said through a spokesman.

 

"We are considering all legal options against the Guardian, who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.”

 

Manafort's statement came one day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office told a federal judge that Manafort had breached his plea agreement by lying repeatedly to the FBI despite pledging to cooperate with the probe.

 

In the same court filing, Manafort denied lying, but both sides agreed the court should move ahead and set a date to sentence him for his crimes.

 

Prosecutors said they plan to file a report before sentencing laying out the alleged crimes Manafort committed after pleading guilty in September.

 

The surprise development came as Mueller is working toward finalising a report on his probe into whether Russia and Trump's campaign colluded in the 2016 presidential election.

 

Part of that probe has involved looking into whether any of Trump's associates may have had advance notice before WikiLeaks published emails stolen by Russian hackers from Democratic computer networks to damage Trump rival Hillary Clinton.

 

In recent months, Mueller's team has subpoenaed associates of Trump's political adviser and Manafort's former business partner, Roger Stone, who has denied having access to the emails.

 

In the Guardian's story published on Tuesday, the paper reported that Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuador's embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and March 2016 - before the damaging emails were released months later.

 

WikiLeaks also denounced the story on Twitter Tuesday, saying it was "willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange."

 

It also reported that it has launched a legal fund to sue the newspaper for publishing a "fabricated story."

 

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-28

Known liar asks you to believe more of his lies.

 

Mueller has pulled Manafort’s plea deal on the basis that Manaforthas been withholding information and lying under oath in his testimony.

 

Top of the list Manafort lied about his meetings with Assange.

 

For Mueller to be sure Manafort lied he himself must have evidence to refute Manafort’s testimony.

 

In the background Ecuador have removed their amassidor and all diplomatic staff who are in contact with Assange.

 

Be sure Ecuador handed Mueller the evidence of Manafort’s meetings with Assange.

 

So Trump’s campaign chairmen met with Assange.

 

And of course Trump was completely unaware of those meetings.

 

Manafort will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

 

Illiberals get your denial glasses on the truth will (despite Trump’s best efforts) out!

 

The Guardian has altered their original story in an attempt to not get sued.

Wikileaks totally denies the story, and is offering 1 million dollars plus the editors resignation if the Guardian story is proven true. Time to reveal the Guardians anonymous sources and let's get to the bottom of this. Considering the strength of the Wikileaks rebuttal and the farce everything Mueller related has become, my money is on Wikileaks being correct (again).

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Wikileaks totally denies the story, and is offering 1 million dollars plus the editors resignation if the Guardian story is proven true. Time to reveal the Guardians anonymous sources and let's get to the bottom of this. Considering the strength of the Wikileaks rebuttal and the farce everything Mueller related has become, my money is on Wikileaks being correct (again).

Wikileakss’ rebuttal is commensurate with the crime vein alleged ‘Treason’.

 

But din’t get distracted, be assures, Mueller did not pull Manafort’s plea deal on the basis of a Guardian article.

Well, there's no denying Manafort traveled to Ecuador in May 2017 to meet with President Lenin Moreno in Quito, under the cover of a Chinese investment in local electrical infrastructure.

 

I have my doubts about the Assange visit, that just seems really stupid on Manafort's part when he could have used a cut-out. But assume GCHQ has the goods, or not.

 

No clue if Manafort is playing "chess" - a pardon will make the president look guiltier, if that's even possible - or just wants to stay in prison. Russians can get to him, and his family, if he spills the borscht.

 

Given trump's desperate and cray-cray tweets over the past 48 hours it seems obvious that whitaker has told him about the case Mueller is building, and that he sees the walls closing in.

 

 

 

 

  

Edited November 28, 20187 yr by mtls2005

43 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

The Guardian has altered their original story in an attempt to not get sued.

Doubt it. The reason was more likely to report honestly, not the fear of getting sued.

You guys do realize it will not be the press ejudicating on these charges, right?

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You guys do realize it will not be the press ejudicating on these charges, right?

 

You do realize that Manafort was found GUILTY in a trial, and then pleaded GUILTY to numerous (honestly, I've lost count) charges as part of his plea agreement, right?

 

Any "adjudication" is complete, right?

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4883340/Manafort-Plea-Agreement.pdf

 

AFAIK, Manafort has not been charged (yet) with any additional crimes. Maybe those will be detailed in future filings?

 

".. just seems really stupid on Manafort's part when he could have used a cut-out. "

We'd like to think those in positions of power have some of the brains they were born with.

There have been so many times we've seen those connected to this administration are not the sharpest pencils in the box.

Same has been true of demos, but this level is "unpresidented"

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

You do realize that Manafort was found GUILTY in a trial, and then pleaded GUILTY to numerous (honestly, I've lost count) charges as part of his plea agreement, right?

 

Any "adjudication" is complete, right?

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4883340/Manafort-Plea-Agreement.pdf

 

AFAIK, Manafort has not been charged (yet) with any additional crimes. Maybe those will be detailed in future filings?

 

In fact he has been charged with violating his plea deal. The veracity of The Guadians claims will be tested in court.

I wouldn’t put anything past that swamp critter the walls are indeed closing in he is a grifter and a proven liar just like his boss

51 minutes ago, mikebike said:

In fact he has been charged with violating his plea deal.

 

That's not clear to me.

 

Only that, in filings, Mueller says he violated the terms of his plea deal, and sentencing should proceed. Manafort's team suggests that he did not lie, but that sentencing should proceed.

 

Not sure any NEW charges have been filed, yet. Suspect that they may be, but let's wait and see, right?

 

In their own words...

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 20187 yr by mtls2005

Another pathological liar ???? 

deep state coup plotters desperation.

embassy in london is under extreme surveillance so HOW did they miss this hehe.

anything to extend this investigation. 

comical

At least Trump is right about the liberal fake news media. It's gotten so bad that it's almost as bad as Fox.

Just now, tumama said:

At least Trump is right about the liberal fake news media. It's gotten so bad that it's almost as bad as Fox.

Nonsense.

 

The MSM correct themselves if they're wrong.

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense.

 

The MSM correct themselves if they're wrong.

 

Yeah but then the damage is already done. Few people read corrections. They can't be right all the time, but they are wrong way too many time for it being acceptable. Back in the days newspapers needed multiple sources to publish a story. Those days are long gone. Which makes sense because many newspapers are struggling to survive economically due to the digitalization of the media. Which ironically pushes them to become what they accuse their independent competition of being, namely fake news. 

 

1 hour ago, tumama said:

 

Yeah but then the damage is already done. Few people read corrections. They can't be right all the time, but they are wrong way too many time for it being acceptable. Back in the days newspapers needed multiple sources to publish a story. Those days are long gone. Which makes sense because many newspapers are struggling to survive economically due to the digitalization of the media. Which ironically pushes them to become what they accuse their independent competition of being, namely fake news. 

 

They are wrong far less than FOXnews...

 

If people are to lazy to read and understand corrections that is not the outlets fault.

 

Your argument seems to be: I read that the earth was flat in 1500 and haven't read any updates since. Why blame me for my ignorance?

21 minutes ago, mikebike said:

They are wrong far less than FOXnews...

 

If people are to lazy to read and understand corrections that is not the outlets fault.

 

Your argument seems to be: I read that the earth was flat in 1500 and haven't read any updates since. Why blame me for my ignorance?

 

Yes it is their fault because they shouldn't be wrong in the first place. At the very least not wrong that often.

 

Also, being wrong is what they accuse fake news of being. Which makes Trump right when he accuses them of being just that. 

 

Your analogy sucks because I wasn't alive in 1500 and neither was anyone else. 

I dont mind being wrong.

or even losing an election but when I do I usually don't blame the russians, spy on campaign and presdient elect using uk operatives, pay for dodgy dossiers, delete my servers, etc etc

 

people with msm induced tourettes  have already called me everything in the book just f or my take on current events so worst you could do is more of the same.????

 

2 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Yes it is their fault because they shouldn't be wrong in the first place. At the very least not wrong that often.

 

Also, being wrong is what they accuse fake news of being. Which makes Trump right when he accuses them of being just that. 

 

Your analogy sucks because I wasn't alive in 1500 and neither was anyone else. 

Please explain how media can be more accurate.

 

Do you believe that historically media was more accurate?

 

Let me update the analogy.

 

I read in 1980 that the USSR and Cold War were the greatest threat to American exceptionalism and haven't read anything since. Better?

13 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

I dont mind being wrong.

or even losing an election but when I do I usually don't blame the russians, spy on campaign and presdient elect using uk operatives, pay for dodgy dossiers, delete my servers, etc etc

 

people with msm induced tourettes  have already called me everything in the book just f or my take on current events so worst you could do is more of the same.????

 

Exactly. Trump might have very well conspired with the Russians. He might even be controlled by Putin. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These people have none of that. All they can do is repeat "you wait and see". It's really laughable if it weren't for the fact that this distraction is playing right into the hands of Trump. Trump is an idiot yet he is still playing these people. That says a lot about their intelligence. 

10 minutes ago, tumama said:

It's not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Really?

 

Whom do you think was financing his bankruptcies since the 80s?

16 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Please explain how media can be more accurate.

 

Do you believe that historically media was more accurate?

 

Let me update the analogy.

 

I read in 1980 that the USSR and Cold War were the greatest threat to American exceptionalism and haven't read anything since. Better?

 

Yes I believe the media was historically more accurate. Back in the days when trust was an important factor for a newspaper. Today it's more about staying economically afloat. The Guardian is like any other newspaper, struggling to stay alive. They know these sensationalist articles will be republished around the world referencing their name. 

 

No that analogy still doesn't make sense because the USSR doesn't exist anymore. It has to be something smaller, like person X said Y. One such falsehood doesn't equate to much, but keep adding up several of them and it does influence people. Then there are other falsehoods that are consistently spread around. Like that 17 intelligence agencies think that Russia hacked the DNC. Still to this day I come across that bogus claim in the media, which just get echoed by people on forums like a mantra.

 

Having said that, I don't think fake news is the bigger problem. The bigger problem is that most people have no ability to understand critical thinking. They are enslaved by their preconceived opinions and choose to believe in things just because it fits the narrative that they like. You can see examples of this with the left and right in the US. Where many Democrats thinks that Trump is controlled by Putin and many Republicans think that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. 

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Really?

 

Whom do you think was financing his bankruptcies since the 80s?

 

Well while I think Trump is an idiot. He's also very smart in the sense that he got people fooled by his way of marketing himself. I very much doubt he's a billionaire. But as long as people think he is, there are enough dumb investors willing to lend him money. Whatever the case, I find your insinuation that he was paid by the Russians in the 1980's ludicrous for many reasons. Mainly because Russia was a part of the USSR at that time and that you have absolutely zero evidence to back that up. I'm not against conspiracy theories but that one is incredible dumb in my opinion. 

Edited November 28, 20187 yr by tumama

Mainstrea

2 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Yes I believe the media was historically more accurate. Back in the days when trust was an important factor for a newspaper. Today it's more about staying economically afloat. The Guardian is like any other newspaper, struggling to stay alive. They know these sensationalist articles will be republished around the world referencing their name. 

 

No that analogy still doesn't make sense because the USSR doesn't exist anymore. It has to be something smaller, like person X said Y. One such falsehood doesn't equate to much, but keep adding up several of them and it does influence people. Then there are other falsehoods that are consistently spread around. Like that 17 intelligence agencies think that Russia hacked the DNC. Still to this day I come across that bogus claim in the media, which just get echoed by people on forums like a mantra.

 

Having said that, I don't think fake news is the bigger problem. The bigger problem is that most people have no ability to understand critical thinking. They are enslaved by their preconceived opinions and choose to believe in things just because it fits the narrative that they like. You can see examples of this with the left and right in the US. Where many Democrats thinks that Trump is controlled by Putin and many Republicans think that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. 

USA tv news was more accurate when they didn’t have a monetary imperative certainly. As soon as tv news departments were expected to make money journalistic ethics left the building and infotainment entered.

 

You seem to have a problem with analogies. They needn’t be timely.

 

Howz this:

I read that the cops in Alabama killed the latest shooter at the scene. My heartfelt congratulations to those exceptional officers!

5 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Well while I think Trump is an idiot. He's also very smart in the sense that he got people fooled by his way of marketing himself. I very much doubt he's a billionaire. But as long as people think he is, there are enough dumb investors willing to lend him money. Whatever the case, I find your insinuation that he was paid by the Russians in the 1980's ludicrous for many reasons. Mainly because Russia was a part of the USSR at that time and that you have absolutely zero evidence to back that up. I'm not against conspiracy theories but that one is incredible dumb in my opinion. 

Are you actually trying to say there was not massive Russian capital floating about in the 80s?

 

You do not have much info into the drug trade of the day do you? 55555!

12 hours ago, DoctorG said:

The Guardian has altered their original story in an attempt to not get sued.

Apparently they did not change much. Their lawyer has probably made a few usual corrections such as adding "would have", plus some updates have been made (i.e. the reaction from Wikileaks after the first version). The core of the article is exactly the same.

https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1706143/diff/0/1

 

On the content of the article, it all depends wether their (Ecuadorian) sources are reliable or not.

18 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, staunchly denied ever meeting with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday, after the Guardian newspaper published a story alleging the two met at least three times, including once in 2016.

So on one side we have a liar denying he met a rapist and on the other the guardian saying they did. 

 

Well easy enough to decide on who to believe...the Guardian may not have a great record when it comes to spelling mistakes, but they are 100% trustworthy in my eyes.