Manafort and Assange - Unbelievable

In this free and tantalizing article from The Guardian - a potential blockbuster of a story and revelation - an awful lot of evidence (mostly circumstantial but some direct) is presented to suggest that Paul Manafort was colluding with one Julian Assange. In particular, Manafort sought out Assange for the purpose of leaking material which could damage Hillary Clintons’ run for POTUS.

The article also indicates that in years prior, Manafort - known to have had as clients various Russian oligarchs - had used Assange to find and release information that could damage his ‘clients’ enemies.

If any of this true, I expect a stunning sequence of developments, with wide-ranging (as well as ‘vertical-ranging’ effects).

The Guardian would never have taken such a chance unless they were 110 percent sure of what they were alleging.

Wow.

Missed edit window: I will add that The Guardian may be borrowing a trick from Turkey’s Erdogan (and will gradually release more ‘solid’, direct proof, allowing the guilty to further embarrass themselves).

I am waiting for MI5 to reveal photos of Manafort entering the Ecuadorian Embassy.

There is only one way into the embassy, past the police and MI5 and Ecuadorian security, who take copies of the passport of anyone entering. That makes this a bizarre and unsupported conspiracy theory.

As I understand it, The Guardian is a reputable news source with a history of high accuracy reporting. Not to say that they can’t have been mislead by their sources or misinterpreted some information to connect things which are not actually connected, but certainly I see no cause to outright deny the information, let alone denounce it as a conspiracy theory, given what we know about the source. Do you have some form of information on which you are basing your view?

From Wikipedia:

“Notable scoops include the 2011 News International phone hacking scandal, in particular the hacking of murdered English teenager Milly Dowler’s phone.[13] The investigation led to the closure of the UK’s biggest selling Sunday newspaper, and one of the highest circulation newspapers in the world, the News of the World.[14] The newspaper also released news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held by US President Barack Obama’s administration in June 2013,[15] and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.[16] In 2016, it led the investigation into the Panama Papers, exposing the links of then British Prime Minister David Cameron to offshore bank accounts. The Guardian has been named Newspaper of the Year four times at the annual British Press Awards, the most recent in 2014 for reporting on government surveillance.[17]”

The print version of the story clearly states they got this from a list in a report of the Ecuadorian intelligence agency, and that the normal Embassy logging procedure for some reason did not happen.

I see it’s in the online article as well. Seems pretty carefully considered as to what it reports, and how it’s worded:

This might have already been addressed earlier in the thread, but assuming there was a lapse on the part of Ecuadorian embassy security, I’m wondering how someone like Manafort didn’t ring some alarm bells with MI5 or British intelligence. Manafort wasn’t exactly hiding his lobbying work in Ukraine.

Is any of this illegal?

I would imagine that it depends on what they were discussing and why. And specifically, on the why, who was paying Manafort at the time.

There seem to be varying levels of “being a foreign agent / spy” that are criminalized, from lobbying for a foreign power without proper registration and disclosure, to being a full-on spy. As of yet, Manafort was only ever charged with the former. Maria Butina, I believe, got something in the middle - not quite a spy, but more than just a misbehaving lobbyist.

If, for example, Manafort was meeting with Assange, in order to consult with the Russian government on their attack of the election, then that could put him into an active military role, rather than just a political role, since the election hacking was a military action by Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency (GRU). Active coordination with a foreign military goes up under treason and spying.

I have no idea how colluding with Assange is being characterized as colluding with Russians, could someone fill me in? I have noticed this trend in reporting on this issue. Seems like quite the begged question. Very sloppy.

That said, I think it is a positive thing that Trump’s campaign was friendly with the Russians. The Russian government has shown no ability to reach into my life in any way, and I doubt this will change. Other European powers have too much influence on US policy.

I am much more concerned about French influence on policy to throw out one example. They have dragged the US government into unnecessary and morally duibious interventions in Africa that reek of colonialism.

We already know for sure a British spy was involved indirectly with the Clinton campaign. This is something that is not a threat to democracy for some reason. Not that I’m worried about the appearance of democratic integrity.

Nice to have all the bases covered. There is no link to Russia. If there is a link to Russia, that’s a good thing. I didn’t kill that guy, and if I did then it was self defense.

Personally, I’d rather the US be “influenced” by European nations than Russia. People in European nations are considerably happier than us, and needless to say people in Russia are very much not.

There seems to be fairly good evidence that WikiLeaks is largely funded and protected by Russia. Probably, some amount of their work is just them doing their own thing, but some is “for the boss”.




In the case of the DNC leak, WikiLeaks was, in essence, operating as a cut-out for Russia.

Think of it like structuring a payment of $100,000 into 11 batches of $9090.90 to avoid reporting requirements for the government. If they discover you did it, the fact that no one payment was more than $10k doesn’t save you from being penalized for the full payment. Similarly, if WikiLeaks is only being involved as a way to make it look like you weren’t working with Russia, then the law considers you to have just been working with Russia. The ruse is ignored for the reality.

Didn’t say there was no link between Russia and Trump. I said I am glad that there is a link. Reread.

Yes I have no doubt the ongoing terrors of French colonialism do not impact their citizen’s happiness.

Ok by evidence you mean Russia belligerent Mike Pompeo and James “Perjury” Clapper said so.

Remember when the CIA and NSA were disgraced institutions? Yes Trump has rehabilitated that image quite nicely.

Yes, both people in the Trump and Obama administrations who would have the resources to be able to say have said so, as have media sources who have investigated the subject, as is demonstrated by the actions taken by Wikileaks as regards Russia, and as shown through leaks of their internal texts and emails to one another within the organization.

I’m curious what level of evidence you’re asking for greater than that? I’m not sure that there’s much more you could get in the way of evidence short of Julian Assange dropping his pants during an interview to show a tattoo of Vladimir Putin on the underside of his balls.

Yawn.

Will, this takes all of five goddamned seconds:

CIA Identifies Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks = Russians, especially in this case.

What did the internal communications reveal?

You have the power of Google and four links that you chose to dismiss rather than read. If you have a complaint with the cites provided, feel free to raise your concerns. But my job is to support my argument, not to do your work for you.

First one I picked was just puffery from government hacks. This did not bode well for the remainder.

Remember when the CIA was headed by a get-her-hands-dirty torturer?