Guardian: Manafort Met with Julian Assange

a reply to: Swills

Who Took the Picture ? Is Mr. Trump talking to him in it ? FAKE NEWS.............

a reply to: theantediluvian

First thanks for the thread

I post stuff from anonymous sources as well, especially when it could be crucial news if true

Also, I think you have been fair saying you see no corroboration from other sources and it may be a fabrication by someone

In addition to the reasons you gave, here is another

So Manafort wasn’t listed on any of the logs, and the guardian piece says that people that saw Manafort enter didn’t realize at the time how important this visit may have been

Yet then presumably someone remembered not only that Manafort was there, but exactly what he was wearing?

Why would you take note of what someone was wearing, and exactly when they visited if you didn’t think the visit was important at the time?

And then set on that info for all of this time, only to release it at almost the end of Muellers investigation?

This smells like garbage to me, but no surprise much of the msm ran it like it was gospel

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Oh yeah, Trump's friend, Epstein.

Epstein was a close friend of a member of Trump's golf club...whom often attended events there with her.
As owner & celeb, Trump visited, had photo ops with, and said nice things about important members and their friends when they were in attendance at functions at his club.
That is just part of the owner's job...and good business.

Trump recieved two serious complaints about Epstein, whom indeed DID have a penchant for hitting on and recruiting young women...unfortunately this also happened at Trump's club while Epstein visited with his member/friend.

First complaint to Trump was from a young housekeeper/maid, Epstien kept hitting on.
Second complaint to Trump was from a very wealthy member telling Trump Epstien hit on his very young daughter and tried to get her to go with him to his home.

Trump immediately kicked Epstien from his club and told him he was never to set foot in it again.

Wikileaks is SUING the guardian for publishing this false story.

It is the true definition of FAKE NEWS.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This has Not been Confirmed by a Third Party . Pure Speculation by the MSM .............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Of course a Trump supporter would deny reality and declare anything that goes against his views as Fake News. Meanwhile, your POTUS is a pathological liar who literally worked hand in hand with an actual Fake News outlet to help get him elected.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Of course a Trump supporter would deny reality and declare anything that goes against his views as Fake News. Meanwhile, your POTUS is a pathological liar who literally worked hand in hand with an actual Fake News outlet to help get him elected.

Still waiting to see how all the anti Trump stuff will work out for you....at this point it is a gigantic nothingburger.....but please....keep letting us know all about it.

a reply to: Swills

Who is denying reality

Ante has also expressed that this story seems suspicious, is he too a trump supporter denying reality?

I and others have given specific questions we have as to the truth of this story

You claim that pointing out these things is denying reality and proves we would declare anything against trump fake

So I assume you have the evidence to back up your claim that this story is in fact true and reality

Or else it seems like the only person here exhibiting the mentality to believe anything that fits their narrative even without evidence would be you

a reply to: Swills

Really Swills ? When was the Last Freakin' Time You Personally were Able to Sense Any Reality other than the one in your Own Delusional Mind ?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Wikileaks is SUING the guardian for publishing this false story.

It is the true definition of FAKE NEWS.

And, yet, CNN and other major news outlets just picked it up and ran with it without confirming it!
Typical.

a reply to: Grambler

Did you see the part concerning the logs and "russians", but that was it? Like, wtf are they even trying? Hey lets just add this in here to reinforce the perception.

a reply to: Arnie123

Hmm... Collusion . Is it a Crime Or Not if Intent cannot be Determined ? .....Hmm...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Amazing how they leave that context out.

a reply to: Witness2008

That's actually the point of fake news. Spread far and fast, then later you walk it back but the walk back doesn't get spread nearly as far. So what you have is a public perception based on a lie.

So Manafort was in that pam anderson costume?

Interesting this "breaks" the same day Mueller throws a fit in the press because criminals aren't really trustworthy.
Rushia needed to be reinjected into the news cycle because?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Wikileaks is SUING the guardian for publishing this false story.

It is the true definition of FAKE NEWS.

And, yet, CNN and other major news outlets just picked it up and ran with it without confirming it!
Typical.

Today, CNN started each segment by mumbling, "We can't 100% confirm this, but..." and then 15 full minutes of discussing how damaging these multiple secret meetings between Manafort and Assange can be for President Trump. That Mueller is methodically building his case, leak-free. Preparing to drop the hammer any day.

Over the Summer, it was COHEN who was, at any moment, bringing President Trump to his knees.

The man (people?) who run CNN should be labeled as enemies to America, and removed from their job.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Rushia needed to be reinjected into the news cycle because?

That's a good question. I would say because declassification is becoming a huge threat to them.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: crtrvt

wikileaks already offered a wager, a hefty one at that

wikileaks is usually correct

The Ecuadorean released the Embassy visitor logs which showed the visits. The Equadoreans gave the logs to Mueller first . This is probably tied in to the recent claim that Manafort violated his plea agreement by lying to investigators. Manafort probably claimed he never met with Assange, And then Mueller gets the Embassy logs and perhaps videos and audio tapes. Equador's security service (Secretaría Nacional de Inteligencia, SENAIN) is top flight and would have taped everything in the consular offices. This may be the smoking gun.

Sources bro.

Also, Mueller lost his key witness with this. Let that sink in.

Manafort was never going to be a witness. Hell, he was convicted of lying multiple times. As a retired trial lawyer and trial judge, I can assure you that only an abject fool ties his case to the testimony of a convicted perjurer. Mueller may be a lot of things, but he's not a fool. He was using Manafort to develop evidence he can use, or, alternatively, as a tool to paint Trump into a corner from which he can't escape. Manaforrt, who is still angling for a presidential pardon tells Trump that he told Mueller that he never met with Assange. Mueller, having the embassy logs and perhaps video in hand knows Manafort is lying so asks Trump, in his written questions about meetings between campaign staff and Wikileaks before the email dump and Trump confirms Manaforts lie, in writing, under penalty of a Section 1001 violation. Bang. Smoking gun. On collusion.

a reply to: F4guy

Except the embassy logs have no manafort visits. Oops. Also not a smoking gun at all, how are they going to prove trump knew about the embassy meeting, even if manafort did go? Also, a meeting is not proof of collusion. They could have discussed a myriad of things being that assange has long been in the crosshairs of the US. You were a judge? Goodness.

NPR reported "the guardian says" this garbage this morning. No mention that manafort and wikileaks both deny the story. Seems they are all getting the same marching orders.

If mueller is still looking for links to trump that says a lot about this "investigation".