n/m
Glenn Greenwald has things to say. I’m not going to engage in this thread, but I thought this might be of interest.
While I support his skepticism in the general sense, and probably doubt that Manafort had these meetings - more likely Ecuador or the UK has spread the story for some strategic reason - I don’t know that Greenwald’s point about photos and video are particularly relevant.
If you wanted most of the UK’s CCTV footage from 8 weeks ago, I venture to guess that none of it is available. Video is large and expensive to store and generally you know about a crime within a few days of the event - there’s just no reason to store all of the footage in perpetuity or even for all that long. If someone reports a crime, you can save a copy for the court case, but otherwise you just let the whole thing get trashed.
And that’s ignoring the fact (I presume) that a newspaper reporter cannot just go into Scotland Yard and request some arbitrary footage of the embassy. I would expect that there are privacy laws that restrict access to this sort of footage to those with a need to know, based on criminal complaints. You can’t just spin it up and stalk your girlfriend through the streets of London nor hand it out to reporters.
MI5 may well track who all comes and goes in the Ecuadorian Embassy. But they’re not going to save a photo of each and every person who goes in and out. Even if they’re taking photos or camera footage of that sort of thing, they would just convert the information to a text log of comings and goings once they have identified the person. Again, there’s no reason to store a photo. If I know that Paul Manafort entered at 10:47, that’s really all I want to know. I don’t need to know what direction he chose to part his hair that morning. A textual log entry is perfectly sufficient and generally more useful.
And, again, even if MI5 chose to keep such an image, two years later, they’re not going to just give it to some reporter, so that he can publish it. Whoever tried to sneak that material out of MI5 would be at risk of getting fired or jailed for leaking secret information to the press. It’s pretty safe to talk to a reporter in a karaoke room and tell him some stuff you know, off the top of your head. Removing physical materials from MI5, that’s a thing you don’t do on a lark. That Paul Manafort visited the Ecuadorian Embassy is not “The CIA is torturing people”. It’s not something that a person will risk his career and personal freedom to notify the press of.
- We (and Greenwald) can’t know and shouldn’t assume that we’ve seen every single photo or video that exists of all the people who ever visited the Ecuadorian embassy.
Of course, we also can’t know that such videos do exist. Maybe they don’t. Maybe it’s true that he never visited Assange. But their absence doesn’t prove that Manafort is for sure cleared of all suspicion.
OTOH - maybe the photos do exist, and the spies don’t want them broadcast. That’s just speculation, but it’s just the flip side to than Greenwald’s insistence that there are no photos.
The case against the meetings between Manafort & Assange is weaker for not having publicly available photo evidence, but that’s not proof it didn’t happen.
“They haven’t released any photos, therefore it couldn’t possibly have happened” is trash logic.
2. Paul Manafort’s name not being on the Embassy’s public visitor’s log obviously doesn’t mean that Manafort never visited there and that the Ecuadorian Embassy wouldn’t have known about it.
Yes of course, it was protocol for Ecuadorian’s Embassy to keep logs. I’m sure you’ve already spotted the weak point there.
3. All the shade Greenwald’s throwing about the Guardian and the Ecuadorian Embassy having a grudge against Assange is weak ass tea.
Yes - it’s also a straw man argument in this context. Greenwald is advocating skepticism:
Something Greenwald notes directly. But he makes the point that if this happened during each of 3 visits, an explanation is called for:
Okay, then, work it from the other end: if he wasn’t at the Ecuadorian Embassy on the date(s) in question - where was he? Serving jury duty, perhaps? 
That would be a lot more persuasive than “no photos, he weren’t there.”
And why does one part of the Ecuadorian government list him as having visited?
Jonathan Cook, previously of the Guardian, talks about this article: Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange
Panicing at the obviously fake nature of the story, Politico have decided it must have been planted by Russia: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-manafort-julian-assange-222694
Here is a video of Luke Harding, the journalist of the OP article, promoting his book “Collusion”, and hanging up on his own interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ikf1uZli4g&feature=youtu.be
He was providing Hillary Clinton with children to murder and eat. I mean I haven’t got any evidence for that, but can you prove it didn’t happen?
You mean why does one document allegedly produced by the Ecuadorian intelligence service list him as having visited? Because the document is fake.
Given fairly compelling evidence that Manafort was in Ecuador at time, I’m gonna say yes, I can.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why even waste your time? WF isn’t worth the effort.
Amusing, given that the hacking of murdered English teenagers Milly Dowler’s phone, as exposed by the Guardian scoop, turned out to the normal aging and automatic deletion of old messages by the phone company, miss-understood by the police force to be evidence of Milly’s continued activity, then blamed on 'hacking" when it turned out that they’d got that wrong.
Anyway, changing the subject slightly, what’s the issue with Assange publishing stuff that the the Russians already know? The original complaint was that he was revealing secrets? Now it turns out that it wasn’t secret at all?
I’m not sure what secrets you’re talking about? This thread is about people meeting each other, not about secrets being revealed.
Ok… right. Nobody has any problem with Assange other than… he’s met with Manafort..
Just joking. This thread was about Assange colluding with Manafort to release information. The thread where nobody cares about the release of information must be some other thread 
Uhm…no one was gonna mention this:
https://www.rt.com/news/444995-assange-manafort-wikileaks-guardian/
Wikileaks bets $1mill that it didnt happen. This was posted almost immediatly after the accusations.
Also no one mentioned how The Guardian changed the entire tone of their original article from “GOTCHA MOTHERFUCKER!!” to…“well maybe this happened. I mean IT COULD have happened.”
I bet two things:
- Wikileaks ( or some Trump crony acting on their behalf) didn’t just bet, but also sued, and they don’t admit they sued. A bet sounds sportsmanlike, suing can be a a bully tactic.
- Wikileaks talks about a meeting that didn’t happen. Nobody says emailcontact or a phonecall didn’t happen. If I were Manafort, no way would I visit Assange in that embassy he’s trapped in and that has camera’s hanging everywhere recording everything.
FWIW, here is an article from the Washington Post (Dec 4, 2018) discussing the lack of follow-up by/from The Guardian that seems to be saying there are real doubts about the story I linked to in the OP.
A shame, and not just cause the story itself would have been a “bombshell” - the lack of confirmation of the Guardian’s reporting will surely be cited by those claiming ‘fake news’ more generally.