Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire
Is there proof Manafort ever met with Assange?
|
No. There's no proof this is a real news story.
Wikileaks REFUTES Fake News from Guardian — Bets $1 Million and Editor’s Head Their Manafort Report is Complete Rubbish
On Tuesday The Guardian from the UK posted a shock report that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in March 2016-this was before he became Trump’s campaign chair.
The far left Guardian reported:
Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.
Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.
It should be easy enough to verify the meetings if Manafort actually visited the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Right?
And if Manafort met with Assange don’t you think that would have been reported by now?
Wikileaks pounced on the report —
Wikileaks refuted the report calling it one of the great embarrassments in journalism history.
This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the "Hitler Diaries".
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
Then Wikileaks bet The Guardian a million dollars that their report is complete trash.
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange. https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
Authors of Bogus Guardian Story About Assange/Manafort Meeting Have Previously Fabricated Stories About WikiLeaks
Rochard is SO intent on believing the fake news narrative, while completely ignoring that the info from Wikileaks has always been 100% genuine. "How dare they release truthful information!"
Rochard, it's been demonstrated that the the info was not the result of a "hack" by Russians or anyone else. It was a LEAK by someone with access to the server. Someone plugged in a flash drive and copied the data. (Seth Rich had access)
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.
Even IF "the Russians" hacked the emails, (which they didn't), who the fuck cares who released the info- what's important is that the corruption and scandals were exposed.
