Russia

Report Claims Paul Manafort Met With Julian Assange Months Before WikiLeaks Published DNC Emails

But WikiLeaks and Manafort have pushed back on the report.

|

Yuri Gripas/REUTERS/Newscom Dominic Lipinski/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange multiple times between 2013 and 2016, according to The Guardian. One of those meetings reportedly occurred in spring 2016, around the time Manafort joined the Trump campaign and several months before WikiLeaks published Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that were obtained by Russian hackers.

Citing a "well-placed source," the Guardian says Manafort went to see Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London around March 2016, though the exact date is "tentative." It was several months later, on July 22, that WikiLeaks published thousands of DNC documents obtained by Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, or GRU. Nearly two years later, in July 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the Department of Justice (DOJ) had filed criminal charges against 12 Russian intelligence officials who were allegedly involved in the hack.

As the Guardian notes, Manafort has claimed he had nothing to do with the hack. It's also not clear what Manafort and Assange spoke about. But an internal document authored by Secretaría Nacional de Inteligencia (SENAIN), Ecuador's intelligence agency, suggests that when Manafort visited Assange in 2013, he was joined by "Russians."

He came back at least two more times. Per the Guardian:

According to two sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated to March.

WikiLeaks, meanwhile, quickly denied the Guardian's report, indicating Manafort never met with Assange.

Manafort was officially named Trump's convention manager on March 29, 2016. On May 19, he was promoted to campaign chairman and chief strategist. But things went downhill for him from there. The New York Times reported in August that Manafort had received undisclosed payments from former Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych's political party. Manafort denied it:

Manafort left the Trump campaign later that month. More than a year later, in October 2017, he became the first person to be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of a larger investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. As Reason's Scott Shackford reported this past August, Manafort was found guilty of eight out of 18 charges related to tax evasion and bank fraud.

Manafort later accepted a plea deal in Mueller's Russia probe. But that deal now appears to be falling apart, as Mueller has accused Manafort of lying to both the FBI and Mueller's office.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to deny that his campaign colluded with Russia:

UPDATE: Following publication of this article, WikiLeaks said it plans to sue The Guardian over what it claims is an inaccurate report. Manafort has also responded, calling the report "totally false and deliberately libelous."

Some in the media world, meanwhile, have raised questions over the Guardian's report, noting that the sourcing is vague and that if Manafort really did visit Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, there would be more evidence, including video proof. Moreover, Luke Harding, who wrote the report, is the author of a book titled "Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House."

Advertisement

NEXT: This 'Three Strikes' Law Sends People to Die in Federal Prison For Drug Crimes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well… there ya go! We finally have our smoking gun. Manafort and “Russians” met with Assange in 2013. They plotted the whole thing two years before Trump formed his campaign committee. Done and dusted!

    1. In this thread, Tony makes an even bigger fool of himself than usual.

      1. You just topped him.
        Again.

        1. Eat shit Hihn.

          1. He’d have to be gay to eat you.
            Find another guy.

            1. Fuck off, Hihn

              1. Keep bellowing, goober
                I only do this to warn new readers that crazed lurkers are here.

                1. Fuck off, Hihn.

        2. Piss off, Hihn

          1. Too adult for me. (sneer)

    2. Trump ran for president in 2012. Does that count?

    3. plotted the whole thing two years before Trump formed his campaign committee. Done and dusted!

      Let’s count how many goobers ignore the 2016 date!

      Trump did tell us not to trust his cult, They’d lied to defend him from even murder, in broad daylight, with witnesses. And why not? They were okay with him telling the entire world that they are totally lacking in morals or conscience,
      Just like him.

      1. The date that the guardian has already walked back with stealth edits?

        1. “According to the Graunaid”
          If it’s in the Graunaid it just has to be true. No pink paper ever has an agenda, ever. You must have dreamed all those stealth edits. Hey! look over there…

          1. THIS psycho!

            “According to the Graunaid”
            If it’s in the Graunaid it just has to be true. No pink paper ever has an agenda, ever. You must have dreamed all those stealth edits. Hey! look over there…

            Nobody said the words you fucking lied in quotes. (sneer)

        2. Let’s count how many goobers ignore the 2016 date!

          The date that the guardian has already walked back with stealth edits?

          Three of the greatest goobers!
          So far,l

  2. This whole Russia-hacked-the-election thing is such a waste of time.

    A. They hacked it and corrupted the election. This is ridiculous on its face, since it implies just a few thousand dollars could outweigh the billions spent by the candidates themselves. Even if the Russians spent millions, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

    B. Trump is in league with Putin. Again it doesn’t pass the smell test, especially after two years of investigations which have only turned up campaign fund law violations which are only crimes in the eyes of partisan bureaucrats.

    C. Trump’s campaign violations are so much worse than Hillary’s that Hillary’s known gross violations of national security with her email servers are insignificant. This again does not pass the smell test, since what is known from leaks of Hillary’s violations is worse than what the two year FBI investigation has bragged about.

    Fuck a bunch of Russian hacks. This is the epitome of fake news.

    1. (smirk)
      Their budget was a million dollars per month.
      Targeting 30 million o Facebook alone, names obtained by fraud,
      Trump won by 38,000 voters,

      Any questions?

      1. A million dollars a month. Over a billion dollars was spent in advertising during the 2016 campaign. Learn how to do math you crazy fucking bastard. Doesn’t your family try to get you some help? Or have they all run off in horror?

        1. You ADMIT he was full of shit..
          You’re too fucking stupid to know anything about Online Advertising.
          And you BELEEB the KGB is as stupid as you!!!

      2. Fuck off hihn.

        Those millions weren’t spent on trump but also backed black lives matter, Hillary, and pushed election conspiracies post election you dumbfuck.

        1. (snort)
          Why would the Russians promote Black Lives Matter?
          Why promote BOTH Hillary and Trump — when we KNOW Donald Jr KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government to help his father’s campaign.

          THAT MILLION PER MONTH WAS BEFORE THE ELECTION!
          WHY WOULD THEY PUSH THEIR OWN CONSPIRACY AFTER THEY WON????

          you dumbfuck.

          See above. (sneer)

  3. “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”

    I would never bet against Wikileaks.

    1. Of course not. Wikileaks is so powerful that Assange is living large in the Ecuadoran embassy, hoping his patrons don’t kick him to the curb tomorrow.

      1. Only an idiot would equate Assange to all of Wikileaks.

        1. If Wikileaks can’t help Assange, how powerful is it? If it associated with or relied upon the likes of Paul Manaford, Roger Stone, or Jerome Corsi, how reliable is it?

        2. That’s what the Rev said about Tom Bombadil.
          So who’s the idiot?

          Learn what sarcastic irony is,

    2. I love that to this asshat author that categorical denial only constitutes “pushing back”.

      1. You publicly confess to illiteracy?
        “Pushing back” is stronger, often includes continuing action (Ilke suing).. And NEVER appears in the article..
        EVERY instance says “denied”

        So who’s the asshat
        (And I’m being kind)

        1. Fuck off, Hihn.

    3. If a source knows that Manafort met Assange, he would provide the place and the date of the meeting. But The Guardian doesn’t print the date. Kind of like: if a woman were sexually assaulted, she would know the place and date of the event.

      It would then be straightforward to corroborate the story. Presumably the place would have to have been the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Typically an embassy maintains a visitor log, and Ecuador would probably respond to an inquiry by Mueller.

      If this story is not completely made up, it will be definitively proved and leaked in a few days. If there isn’t a blockbuster story confirming The Guardian claim in the next few days, the story is a complete fabrication.

      1. The article says that Ecuador does maintain a visitor log and that Manfort isn’t on it. Somehow the Guardian interprets that to mean Manfort met with Assange without registering rather than that the sources are lying.

        This whole thing is a lie. There is no way he met with Assange and got the embassy to let him in without registering.

        1. #believeanonymoussources

    4. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange”

      And Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, who said this is no linger a Christian nation.
      Trump’s economy is the strongest ever (Obama had higher quarters and Labor Participation hasn’t budged)
      Trump won the Electoral vote in a landslide (38,000 voters)
      etc., etc., etc.

  4. WTF? I love Paul Manafort now.

    In all seriousness, there is no greater victim of the Resistance’s excesses than Julian Assange. His treatment is definitive proof that progressives, like their newfound neoconservative allies, don’t give a damn about civil liberties.

    1. Progressivism minus neoconservatism equals ZERO!

      1. umm, it’s actually been Left – Right = Zero, for about 50 years now.

  5. It appears Trump fans need to prepare for these emerging developments.

    I suggest they begin with ‘there is no proof,’ then, after Mueller proves it, immediately switch to ‘there is no crime in two people meeting.’

    They might want to begin cultivating a ‘Mueller has been a secret Democrat for ages’ backup plan, though.

    1. If you suggest something, people should do the precise opposite.

      1. I suggest getting an education (backwater religious schooling doesn’t count), preferring reason to superstition, choosing science over dogma, picking tolerance over bigotry, residing in modern and successful community, and preferring progress to backwardness.

        Feel free to do the precise opposite. It’s a proven path toward becoming a disaffected white nationalist incel.

        1. But if we do what you say then we end up as miserable human beings hated by the rest of humanity like you are.

          1. People who know your history,

            Your attitude shows what you are.
            Are your parents proud of how you turned out.

        2. Oof. Opa. Pallamadonna.

          The projection is strong with this one.

          Bow before Thulsa Doom!

        3. That’s funny my great aunt is a Catholic nun and a bio-chemist. Who knew her religious affiliation stopped her ability to do cancer research, I mean her fellow scientist at the research lab she worked at didn’t seem to take issue but now that I read such an intelligent well thought out comment by some the likes of the Rev I may have to throw out years of experience and my knowledge of the history of religion and science.

        4. I agree. Thoughtful libertarians pursue rigorous academic coursework in gender and racial studies departments. In doing so, they adapt themselves to the realities of twenty-first century life and recognize the levels of privilege ingrained in traditional libertarian thought. Science is also a must, particularly biology, which clearly demonstrates that gender is alterable at will. Tolerance is, of course, the most valuable virtue a person can practice. Individuals do not merit respect, but collectives absolutely do. Love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love.

        5. I suggest getting an education (backwater religious schooling doesn’t count), preferring reason to superstition, choosing science over dogma, picking tolerance over bigotry, residing in modern and successful community, and preferring progress to backwardness.

          This is your catechism. All of you say things like this.

          And then erupt in outrage when we quote things that reveal that you’ve never actually read Das Capital–or don’t know what’s being ‘selected’ in natural selection or are unaware that the planet has spent far more time ice free than iced up.

          You don’t understand that you’re using the word ‘tolerance’, which refers to putting up with things one does not like, when you mean ‘acceptance’.

          You are truly the worst of man’s children–

          ‘They are Man’s,’ said the Spirit, looking down upon
          them. ‘And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers.
          This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both,
          and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
          for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
          writing be erased.

          You are that boy, Artie, glaring out in despoiled finery, never understanding why we all just won’t do what you say.

          1. And then erupt in outrage when we quote things that reveal that you’ve never actually read Das Capital–or don’t know what’s being ‘selected’ in natural selection or are unaware that the planet has spent far more time ice free than iced up

            Are you really stupid enough to believe any of that is relevant to the thread?

            1. Are you really stupid enough to believe you’re relevant to anyone?

                1. Fuck off, Hihn!

                  1. (boldface in response to bullying, aggression and assault,by a thug)

                    It was never my intention to trigger a precious snowflake.
                    But WHY so much rage and hatred on DOCUMENTED facts?

                    NOT just the left that tries to shut down opposing viewpoints.
                    The practice originated on the RIGHT over 50 years ago. Book burning and bans, movie censorship, McCarthyism … the list goes on and on., and goes on and on.

                    Today: Left – Right = Zero
                    Which is why God invented libertarians as neither. (now a growing majority of Americans)

    2. “…immediately switch to ‘there is no crime in two people meeting.'”

      That’s a good place to start, asshole.

      1. Sensible, innocent people tend not to engage in orchestrated, longstanding deception about innocuous meetings.

        Ask Papadopolous about that one. Maybe wait a few weeks, though, because the warden might not make him available until then.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.27.18 @ 11:45AM|#
          “Sensible, innocent people tend not to engage in orchestrated, longstanding deception about innocuous meetings.”

          Pathetic.
          Not even worth a bronze in the conclusion-jumping event.
          But about what I’d expect from a stupid, uneducated, asshole like you.

          1. SEVO IS TRIGGERED… FOR THE 1,563rd TIME!

            He DENIES that Trump’s former adviser, George Papadopoulos, IS NOW IN PRISON .,., EXACTLY AS STATED BY REV. KIRKLAND

            Ex-Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos begins two-week prison sentence.

            So .,.. how did Psycho Sevo respond to mentioning a TOP news story of the week?

            But about what I’d expect from a stupid, uneducated, asshole like you.

            THE NEWS?
            BWAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAA

            Just like their Lord and Savior, Donald J Trump , whio averages 6 lies every day for nearly two years, and assaults or insults everyone who fails to bow down before Him (praise God) …. which is how he programs the robotic minds of his cult. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS REAL!

    3. Mueller = Lionel Hutz.

      1. Lionel Hutz was an accomplished lawyer, proficient prosecutor, lifelong Republican appointed to be FBI director by a Republican, and war hero? I missed that episode.

  6. I wonder which is sadder, the fact that a fairly significant minority of the US population doesn’t care that Russia interfered in American democracy because they got a guy with an (R) after his name, or the fact that the same is true of most of Reason’s readership.

    1. The 1980s called. They want their Reagan-era foreign policy back, you bigot.

      1. So it’s OK for foreign governments to interfere in American elections now?

        All together now: “Yes, as long as a guy with an (R) after his name wins.”

        1. Tony|11.27.18 @ 11:11AM|#
          “So it’s OK for foreign governments to interfere in American elections now?”

          I need a laugh this morning: Define “interfere” as used here in a way that doesn’t leave you looking like a raving maniac.

          1. Pretend they did it for Hillary and then maybe your infant mind could comprehend the problem.

            1. “Pretend they did it for Hillary and then maybe your infant mind could comprehend the problem.”

              So you are a raving maniac.

            2. Ok I’ll do what you ask.

              *pretending they did the same for Hillary*

              They did virtually nothing for Hillary.

              *pretending off*

              1. How much did Clinton Foundation get from Kremlin-related entities? How much did Bill get in speaking honorariums from Kremlin-related entities?

                How much did Trump get from same?

            3. “They” DID do it for Hillary. She was the buyer of the “dossier”. The dossier was put together by an English spy (a foreigner) and multiple Russians (also foreigners). It was typical dirty politics, which was probably legal, although slimey. It became illegal when the FBI became involved and used FISA to spy on the Trump campaign.

              There was collusion with the Russians in the 2016 election… By the Democrats, and particularly with Hillary’s campaign. It failed. She lost.

              1. Even though Hillary lost, I’m still ok with her being prosecuted over it.

        2. If Iran “interfered” in the presidential election and helped Clinton win (for whatever reason), I still wouldn’t be indulging in the sort of saber rattling that’s become common on the left re: Russia.

          And I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, nor do I plan on doing so in 2020, so why the hell would I be happy with him winning?

          1. If Iran “interfered” in the presidential election and helped Clinton win (for whatever reason), I still wouldn’t be indulging in the sort of saber rattling that’s become common on the left re: Russia.

            And I must’ve missed the part where the current President bungled a gift ‘reset button’ to the Iranian ambassador.

            1. ZING!

            2. Given the behavior of Democrats in the past few years, are we still sure that she “bungled” it? That is, perhaps she intended to insult her Russian counterpart. It really was amazing that, with all the Russian language skill employed by the US government, it was incompetent to translate a single word correctly.

        3. The case could be made that restricting the free flow of information, no matter the source and which voters can choose for themselves whether or not to use, is actual interference.

          It’s funny to me that both sides have claimed foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election. Take your pick. Did the Russians brainwash swaths of Americans into voting for a conman and against their interests? Or did illegal aliens steal the popular vote away from a candidate who understands electoral maps?

          1. A) Yes B) No. That wasn’t difficult.

            1. There was, of course, a hidden third choice, which is admittedly not as emotionally satisfying to the partisan as one or the other of the stated two.

              1. I’m only here for the emotional outlet it allows.

        4. So, Tony, Assange is accused of making facts about one of the candidates and their campaign public. Actual facts. That’s harmful to democracy?

          1. John Podesta’s risotto recipe being perceived as more of a scandal than Trump conspiring with a foreign adversary to tilt an election is what’s harmful to democracy.

            1. There is no evidence Trump conspired with anyone. You literally just make shit up and consider it fact.

              1. Give it a few days.

                1. You’d still be incorrect now. You’re agreeing there isn’t evidence now, which means your reasoning is already flawed. When information changes is when your opinion should change, not before.

                2. Tony|11.27.18 @ 12:17PM|#
                  “Give it a few days.”

                  Pretty sure scumbag made the same comment along about February, 2017.
                  How long are we supposed to wait while Meuller digs through garbage cans in hopes of finding an un-paid parking ticket?

                3. Tomy, you palsied buggerer of schoolboys, we’ve given it nearly two years. Time to fire Mueller and co., and begin prosecuting THEM. And Hillary, and her henchmen.

              2. There is no evidence Trump conspired with anyone. You literally just make shit up and consider it fact.

                It was released by Don Junior, proof of conspiring with the Russian government to help his dad campaign, which Trump got caught lying about as a coverup. That’s a conspiracy, by definition. Collusion is NO part of Mueller’s assignment – so Trump suckered your sorry ass, by denying something that has never been an issue, and his goobers swallowed it.

                Now, goober, tell us that conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence a Presidential (or any) election — an undeniable fact — is NOT illegal. Severe denial is a mental affliction

                Anything else?

                1. No, it wasn’t. Now turn up that morphine drip you valueless sack of offal.

                  1. I BAITED THE THUG !!!

                    HE BIT!!!

                    no, it wasn’t. Now turn up that morphine drip you valueless sack of offal.

                    REEL HIM IN! …… PROOF!!!!

                    Fucking stalker
                    (sneer)

                    1. Last of the Shitlords is well known in these parts for being the commenter most likely to have already murdered someone for lookin’ at him funny, gotten away with it, and disposed of the body in various artistic ways.

              3. The progressive left loves its conspiracy theories.

                1. The progressive left loves its conspiracy theories.

                  Like Obama being a Kenyan?

                  1. “Like Obama being a Kenyan?”

                    Like you being a sentient being.
                    Fuck off, Hihn.

            2. “John Podesta’s risotto recipe being perceived as more of a scandal than Trump conspiring with a foreign adversary to tilt an election is what’s harmful to democracy.”

              Perceived by who exactly. I’m hearing a lot about the latter and nothing about the former.

              And you dodged the question. How was what Assange is accused of doing harmful to democracy?

              1. America is (for the moment) still a democracy, and Russia isn’t. Assange, wittingly or not, worked for Russia against America. So there.

                1. To publish facts. Actual facts. I’m told – by you among others – that the left is the side that believes in facts.

                  Knowledge clarifies. Actual factual information is non-partisan, to those who are willing to be non-partisan.

                  1. COWARDLY EVASION

                2. Funny how shitlibs started bitching about WikiLeaks when it was Democrats that started getting burned by it.

                  Anything that causes a leftist pain isn’t all bad.

                  1. Anything that causes a leftist pain isn’t all bad.

                    To amoral bigots, totally lacking in humanity.

                3. Tony|11.27.18 @ 12:29PM|#
                  “America is (for the moment) still a democracy, and Russia isn’t.”
                  The US is a republic, so you fucked up already.

                  “Assange, wittingly or not, worked for Russia against America. So there.”
                  Your assertions are not arguments, scumbag.

                4. America is (for the moment) still a democracy,

                  America has never been a democracy. It has always been a Constitutional Republic.

                  1. Not in decades, goober.

                5. No, you fanny bandit, America is a constitutional republic.

            3. On this thread… Tony still acts confused as to who Steele is and where he purportedly got his information from. Problem is Hillary’s collusion is proven and admitted. And it included campaign violations for funnelling payments through a law firm.

              1. You’re full of shit again.

                Not proven and never admitted, yahoo.

                Left – Right = Zero
                Both eager to be manipulated

        5. What way did a foreign government interfere and how would you prevent that kind of interference? What else would that have negative effects on?

          There are things that are annoying and things require the use of government force to correct. Those are not always the same things.

          1. What way did a foreign government interfere

            Pay attention. I’ll TRY to dumb it down to your level.

            Donald Jr has (STUPIDLY) admitted that he knowingly conspired with the Russian government, to help his father get elected. This is an undeniable fact, still in his Twitter feed,

            Also undeniable, his father tried to cover it up, by lying about it. The meeting at Trump Tower,

            I suspect none of this has been reported on Pravda Fox, Breitbart, WND or Infowars. And you are responsible for your own choices.

            And here’s the proof of how badly yout’re been manipulated

            Your choice now is. to accept absolute p[roof, or remain a bellowing blowhard,,.
            I’m betting against even a smidgen of integrity. No offense intended.

            Check my link to see how TOTALLY retarded is Donald Jr. (lol)
            It’s four pages.

            1. Hihn, this is all beyond your limited comprehension. Go away.

              1. And here’s the proof of how badly yout’re been manipulated

                this is all beyond your limited comprehension.

                Says the goober confused by PROOF
                (sneer)

                1. I don’t even bother to read your bullshit. Or engage you on any topic. You are a deranged moron. We all hate you and no one gives a shit what you think. So there is no point to you posting on Reason, or to continue living.

                  1. GOOBER … HUMILIATES HIMSELF AGAIN!!!!

                    STILL REFUSES ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT HES A FOOL,

                    So there is no point to you posting on Reason, or to continue living.

                    Typical, authoritarian thug.

                    It’s simply not true, Sluggo.
                    The entire universe does not disappear if you refuse to open your eyes.
                    Nor can reality be changed by bellowing and stalking your prey, precious snowflake
                    (sneer)

    2. >>>doesn’t care that Russia interfered in American democracy

      cute.

      1. Only to a traitor.

    3. If there’d been an election during my lifetime that Russia hadn’t interfered with, I might care more.

      1. Where’s YOUR proof, goober?

    4. Russia interfered in American democracy

      As if America had democracy and not a corporate duopoly.

      1. So you’re also stupid about our tax code!

  7. OMG, is Manafort the one who guessed John Podesta’s password???

  8. At the risk of being called a useful idiot brainwashed into taking Putin’s side in the Russian mind-control election-rigging conspiracy, I’d believe Snowden and Assange a million times over before I’d believe the insider intelligence grand poobahs leaking anti-Snowden and anti-Assange information to the press. Does the press not understand that these leaks are coming from people whose very job is to spread lies and rumors and disinformation in furthering plots and conspiracies and that they hate Snowden and Assange with a white-hot passion and really, really, really would like to see them dead? If a Coca-Cola executive wants to slip you a story about how much Pepsi sucks, are you just going to run that puppy or are you going to be a little bit skeptical about the source and therefore the story?

    1. Whereas the Russian oligarchy and government have nothing but the world’s and the US’s best interests at heart.

      1. “Whereas the Russian oligarchy and government have nothing but the world’s and the US’s best interests at heart.”

        It would take a fucking dishonest piece of shit like you to draw that ‘conclusion’ from that post. Do you ever post honestly, scumbag?

      2. They don’t, which is why risking a new Cold War is such a dumb proposition.

        1. Why is the choice between a new cold war and letting Putin get away with fucking our country?

          That’s the exact bullshit rhetoric they were spreading during the election!

          1. How do you plan on stopping Putin from getting away with “fucking our country”? Shall we hire Shaggy, Scooby, and the gang to track him down? Perhaps they can team up with Old Man Mueller to get the drop on him.

            If you think Russia is what motivated the plebs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida to go red, then you haven’t been paying attention. Continued detente is the appropriate solution. Continuing to cripple the Russian economy is not.

            And FYI: I bash Republican warmongers (read: Trump) who favor crippling the Iranian economy with sanctions, too. So, I’m not the victim of neo-Soviet propaganda or whatever.

            1. It actually is a case of 3D chess with Putin. We’ve never seen anything like this, mostly because the internet didn’t exist during the first cold war. Propaganda is real, and it works, otherwise we wouldn’t have a word for it. And it’s also the best excuse anyone has for voting for Donald fucking Trump to be president. I don’t care if people acknowledge that they were duped into believing that work emails on a private account were more of a problem than treason, but it’s certainly not something to simply be ignored. Absolutely no one would think so if the beneficiary of the meddling had a (D) after her name, and you know that.

              1. “It actually is a case of 3D chess with Putin.”

                A more reasonable comparison is to bowling. With the bumpers up.

                1. What I mean is that there’s not any mustache-twirling obviousness to the crimes. Putin probably thought Hillary would win. Assange, Snowden, and Greenwald probably had no serious anti-American intentions. When your goal is chaos, there are many paths to kick the ball.

                  1. What I mean is that there’s not any mustache-twirling obviousness to the crimes. Putin probably thought Hillary would win. Assange, Snowden, and Greenwald probably had no serious anti-American intentions. When your goal is chaos, there are many paths to kick the ball.

                    This quite true. I’m not sure how you managed to formulate this thought since every single one of your other posts on this topic can be boiled down to “PUTIN RIGGED THE ELECTION FOR TRUMP”.

                    As you accidentally cogently stated above, Putin’s plan was clearly just to try and sow discord and distrust in the US election system, which judging by you and your fellow lunatic chicken-little political allies, he was extremely successful.

                    1. And he succeeded probably beyond his wildest dreams by actually getting a big fat blob of chaos in the Oval Office.

                    2. “And he succeeded probably beyond his wildest dreams by actually getting a big fat blob of chaos in the Oval Office.”

                      Yep, Trump, therefore Rissskis, therefore Trump, therefore Russkis!
                      Gee, how simple it all is. Even a raving maniac like you can figger it out!

                    3. Tony, you are so obtuse that can’t even grasp things that you yourself have said. Good luck with the rest of your life. Try and stay away from anything with a child safety warning attached to it.

              2. The KGB funded pretty much the entire civil rights movement along with the Vietnam protest movement. They also had spies that went all the way through the State Department and War Department during the Cold War. The Manhattan Project was the most closely guarded secret in American history and Stalin knew about the successful test of the bomb within days of it occuring and had plans and information sufficient to allow the Soviets to construct their own bomb within 4 years, despite the Soviets having no atomic bomb project of their own as late as 1944 and possessing maybe a 10th of the engineering and science genius assembled by the US in the Manhattan project.

                The KGB has been interfering with and sowing chaos in this country for decades. Claiming that a few trolls on Facebook is somehow unprecidented just makes you look even dumber than you normally look. Just give it up already.

                1. Unprecedented in that they never installed a US president before. Correct me if I’m wrong.

                  1. “Unprecedented in that they never installed a US president before.”

                    See below, you fucking idiot.

                  2. I don’t think Obama was installed by the Russians Tony. Maybe the Iranians but not the Russians. So no, there is nothing unprecidented about this.

                    1. Two raging psychos in a row!!

                2. “Claiming that a few trolls on Facebook is somehow unprecidented just makes you look even dumber than you normally look. Just give it up already.”

                  Tony has this all figured out and the rest of us don’t get it:
                  1) Trump won, therefore:
                  2) Russkies, therefore:
                  3) Trump won.
                  See how simple it all is. If only the rest of us would just come to our senses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

                  1. How stupid is Sevo?

                    “Claiming that a few trolls on Facebook is somehow unprecidented just makes you look even dumber than you normally look. Just give it up already.”

                    Pay attention, goober.

                    1) Your “few trolls” spent a million per month
                    2) Targeting 30 MILLION users — names obtained by fraud.
                    3) Trump won by a mere 38,000 votes in 3-states combined.

                    Is the math too much for you?

                    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

                    (now launch a raging psycho insult )
                    (smirk)

                    1. “1) Your “few trolls” spent a million per month
                      2) Targeting 30 MILLION users — names obtained by fraud.
                      3) Trump won by a mere 38,000 votes in 3-states combined.
                      Is the math too much for you?”

                      That’s not “math’, you fucking idiot; that’s your idiotic assumptions with number thrown in.
                      Fuck off, Hiihn.

                    2. (now launch a raging psycho insult )
                      (smirk)

                      Proven.

            2. Matthew says we’re helpless against Putin, as a “defense” of … God only knows.
              But the next is even wackier!

              If you think Russia is what motivated the plebs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, (useless states deleted) then you haven’t been paying attention.

              If you don’t know those three states went red (for Trump) by a TOTAL of 38,000 voters COMBINED — then YOU are the clueless one,

              So, how much influence was needed to flip 38,000 voters, from the Rooskies, Wikileaks and Comey combined?

              Anything else?

          2. “letting Putin get away with fucking our country?”

            Please define this phrase in a way which doesn’t leave you looking like a raving maniac.

            1. Have you seen the president they helped install?

              1. “Have you seen the president they helped install?”

                So you are a raving maniac.

              2. Tony the 80s called and the want their foreign policy back. Obama spent 8 years rolling over and playing dead to Putin and mocking anyone who said Russia was a problem.

                So if you want to claim Russia is this huge menace that interfered in the 2016 election, you can start by blaming the guy who was President and responsible for preventing that from happening. If you won’t do that, and you won’t because you are constitutionally incapable of blaming Obama for anything, you just look like the partisan moron you are when you claim to be so concerned about the Russian. You are just butt hurt that the country wouldn’t put your loser candidate in the White House.

                1. I’d be happy to make a list of things I think Obama did wrong. I don’t worship politicians like so many of you libertarians.

                  1. Then make it. And item number one can be how he allowed Putin to run wild for 8 years. Until you make the list, shut the fuck up. Saying you can make a list without actually naming your criticisms is just you being the same lying partisan hack you always are. Make the list or shut the fuck up.

                    1. His biggest flaw was trusting that his own brilliance could turn Republicans into not-sociopaths. There’s lots of stuff with Russia that they kept secret that in hindsight might have better served us if revealed, but again, everyone thought Hillary would win and the issue would be better dealt with later.

                    2. Sorry Tony, Obama just tried to work with the Republicans too much is not a criticism. That is just you saying he was right but didn’t understand how wrong the Republicans were.

                      Even you are smart enough to understand that doesn’t cut it. You are just a partisan moron Tony. You don’t even understand your own positions much less the ones you claim to hate. You emote whatever you think your politics requires. It is a sad way to live but you seem to like it.

                    3. Pot meet kettle, the difference being that Republicans are indeed wrong about everything. That’s not to say Democrats are right about everything, but at least they hold to a fact-based worldview as opposed to a deluge of wet horseshit, conspiracy theories, and racist demagoguery, and that’s as good as it gets in this country unfortunately.

                    4. Sorry Tony, claiming I don’t criticize Republicans doesn’t get you off the hook. You can’t give a single concrete criticism of Obama. The only thing you can say is that he just gave the Republicans too much credit. Everything else he did was perfect according to you. Trying to change the subject doesn’t make you look less like the fanatical idiot you are.

                    5. You’re asking me for a list of President Obama’s flaws on a thread about Paul Manafort, and I’m the one evading the subject? What does Obama have to do with anything, you pathetic partisan freak?

                    6. I am saying that you are incapable of listing a single flaw or criticism of Obama. And you are proving me right. It is amazing how all Progs are alike in this way. Joe from Lowell was the same. You really are NPC. You are programed such that you cannot give a concrete example of something you think the Demcorats are wrong about. You just won’t do it, even though doing so would actually make you look a little less stupid and give you some credibility.

                    7. STOP EVADING TONY’S QUESTIONS, COWARD

                    8. Extrajudicial murder of anyone anywhere is kind of the epitome of sociopath, Tony.
                      That’s on Obama.

                    9. Does that include hundreds of thousands of Iraqis too?

                    10. So Obama was right to order the murder of an American citizen Tony? Since Obama did it, that was okay?

                      I don’t give a shit if Bush nuked Baghdad, that wouldn’t make Obama murdering American citizens any better.

                      Again, changing the subject doesn’t get you off the hook. It just makes you look foolish.

                    11. Obama also said “57 states.” Doesn’t make Trump’s daily gibberish any better. Trump’s killed more people than Obama did. You’re just cherry picking excuses. It’s embarrassing.

                    12. What does Obama saying 57 states have to do with him ordering the murder of an American citizen? Nothing as far as I can see. Again, changing the subject just makes you look more foolish.

                      Was Obama right to order the murder of a US citizen? Is that okay because if Obama did it it must be right?

                    13. Trump’s killed more people than Obama did.

                      That is just factually wrong. Obama killed hundreds of thousands of people in Libya alone in addition to running a very active drone strike program for 8 years. Trump’s total isn’t even close to Obama’s. Stop lying Tony.

              3. So, Putin went to the trouble and expense to “install” a president, but then didn’t bother to set him with control of the House of Representatives. Is that your story? Really?

                1. But he did. What are you talking about?

                  1. Funny, as I recall the Democrats retook the House in the 2018 election. Or did you miss that bit of news? Why did Putin allow that, knowing it would hamstring his man in the White House?

                    1. I made the specific point that Putin isn’t a movie villain with unlimited powers. He influenced the election with some cheaply bought propaganda. He got the chaos he wanted, and voters did the natural thing and ran screaming from it in 2018.

                    2. What Obama gave Russia…

                      Reduced American research into tactical nukes, reduced tactical armaments, gave cover to Syria by letting Russia fake dispose of chem weapons, Crimea, foothold to middle East in Syria, weapons technology in Hillary’s skolkovo deal, ignored Russian development of tactical nukes against treaty, expand Russian energy into Europe, blocked Ukraine to nato, killed weapon sales to Ukraine…

                      Now do what trump has given to Russia.

                    3. America.

                    4. Putin only got the chaos he wanted because Democrats hated Trump and the MAGA deplorables so much that the Democrats and their media created the chaos.

                      Putin’s so-called interference was far less significant than Soviet influence during the Cold War. Putin’s “interference” was confined to broadcast propaganda and, perhaps, some low-quality Internet memes. Only a deranged partisan zealot would think otherwise, but there are a bunch of those. In one survey, over 2/3 of Democrats actually reported that they believe the Russians not only “interfered” with Internet propaganda, but also interfered in the vote tallies, even though there is precisely zero evidence of the latter. Even Hillary acknowledged that it is stupid to think otherwise.

                2. but then didn’t bother to set him with control of the House of Representatives. Is that your story? Really?

                  You said something so TOTALLY fucking stupid in public?

                  You ACTUALLy equate a single election campaign to 435 separate campaigns two years later?

                  Typical Trumpster (lol)

                  1. Fuck off, Hihn.

  9. “One of those meetings reportedly occurred in spring 2016, around the time Manafort joined the Trump campaign and several months before WikiLeaks published Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that were obtained by Russian hackers.”

    So Manafort is the cause of Assange releasing accurate information?

  10. Say, how is law enforcement’s investigation into poor Seth Rich’s murder coming along anyway? Do they have any leads at all yet as to just exactly who that dastardly perp might be?

    1. I still think it was connected to that server, Vince Foster, Benghazi, and the pizza place.

      Carry on, birther-class clingers.

      1. Ahhh, so nobody actually shot him in the back multiple times, the bullets magically appeared out of thin air traveling at high velocity all by themselves.

        You really are some kind of genius, Mary Stack of Fort Worth, Texas.

        1. The internet exists. There is no excuse for a person in possession of basic cognition not to simply google whether he’s being a dumbass who believes memes over facts.

        2. FTR he shot himself once in the mouth, you idiot.

          1. ACTUALLY, you blithering fucking retard, he was shot in the back.

            The internet exists and on it is Wikipedia, where tjeir sourced intro to the article about his murder says

            “The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1] Rich died from two shots to the back.”

            I will NEVER let you forget how incredibly stupid ypu look right now.

            Everyone remind Tony how stupid he is

            1. Thank you so much for giving me this ammunition Tiny Tony.

            2. Oh, I was talking about Vince Foster.

              Fun fact: Justice Brett Kavanaugh likes beer and was/is a Vince Foster conspiracy theorist.

              As for the other ridiculous, sad conspiracy theory involving Mr. Rich, he was murdered in a random act of robbery, just as the article you linked says (as well as noting multiple times how his death is implicated in nutty right-wing conspiracy theories).

              1. “Oh, I was talking about Vince Foster.”

                I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand what is clearly being discussed.

                Fun fact, you’re too stupid to understand the ACTUAL subject of conversations and make a fool of yourself calling other people idiots while you are getting everything totally wrong.

                1. So did you read the link you posted or what?

                  1. You mean the one I quoted? Jesus christ even your questions make you look stupid, as if you being too stupid to follow the conversation wasn’t bad enough.

              2. he was murdered in a random act of robbery

                Many, if not most, of your fellow leftists don’t even believe this bullshit.

                1. Where do the libertarians who aren’t moron conspiracy theorists hang out?

                  1. Right here, bitch who is too stupid to follow the conversation so he has to accuse people of believing conspiracy theories when all they ACTUALLY did was point out he was wrong.

                    God damn you cannot stop making yourself look like a fucking moron.

                  2. Where do the libertarians who aren’t moron conspiracy theorists hang out?

                    Probably the same place as left-wing water filter salesmen.

                2. Weigel’s Cock Ring|11.27.18 @ 12:30PM|#

                  He was murdered in a random act of robbery

                  Many, if not most, of your fellow leftists don’t even believe this bullshit

                  FAIL! YOU JUST REDEEMED TONY’S CONFUSION WITH FOSTER, GOOBER!!!!
                  HIS FAMILY BELIVES IT!!! AND HIS OWN GIRLFRIEND. AND THE POLICE,

                  “Worst nightmare,” Rich’s mother, Mary Rich, said by phone.
                  Mary Rich said police told her family her son may have been the victim of an attempted robbery.

                  He was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when she heard noise on Rich’s end of the line, Mary Rich said. Her son told his girlfriend not to worry about it.

                  “There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back.”she said.

                  Get a life,Trumptards

          2. Seth Rich was murdered in Washington DC. Jesus Christ Tony, even you know that.

            1. Tony is too stupid to keep track of the subject of conversation.

              1. And you suffer from the terrible habit of believing every conspiracy theory that crosses your inbox as long as it confirms your tribal loyalties. Read the fucking link you threw at me.

                1. Who said anything about beleiving anything you stupid fuck?

                  Learn to read champ, I’M NOT THE OP.

                  Jesus christ you descended from stupid to kirklandian.

            2. And just about everyone has forgotten that his lawyer, Shawn Lucas, served Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC with a lawsuit, and was conveniently found dead on his own bathroom floor about a month later. I know, I know, just another really unfortunate and terrible coincidence.

              1. So this is how disaffected, no-count, white nationalist, backwater incels process their world.

                1. So this is how disaffected, no-count, white nationalist, backwater incels process their world.

                  As opposed to self-loathing, striver, 85 IQ hicklibs process theirs.

              2. How many times can Weidel’s CR fuck up in a single mob assault?

                I know, I know, just another really unfortunate and terrible coincidence.

          3. Tony is always a liar and an idiot.

        3. Ahhh, so nobody actually shot him in the back multiple times, the bullets magically appeared out of thin air traveling at high velocity all by themselves.

          Even if you were NOT a full-of-shit, crazed psycho, YOU have just confessed to murdering Foster, PUBLICLY, WITH WITNESSES!!!

  11. And Manafort meeting with Assange is a crime, how?

    1. “And Manafort meeting with Assange is a crime, how?”

      Jeeze.
      Trump.
      And Russkis.
      And that hag lost.
      Isn’t that enough?

      1. other than that, it is the question no one is answering

        1. Tony did, above.
          The hag lost, therefore it must be a crime.
          It’s all so simple to Tony, which is probably a symptom…

    2. And Manafort meeting with Assange is a crime, how?

      Where did anyone say that it was?

    3. And Manafort meeting with Assange is a crime, how?

      An apt point for Mr. Manafort to ponder in prison.

  12. >>>Manafort was found guilty of eight out of 18 charges related to tax evasion and bank fraud.

    tax evasion should be cheered.

    1. Reason is all about the integrity of proscutors and the intelligence communty and ensuring everyone pays their taxes. They are really Libertarian like that.

      1. soft spot for supply-side of crime is not for everyone, but taxes shouldn’t be so evading them doesn’t bother me

      2. They are really Libertarian like that.

        Nothing advances or embodies libertarianism quite like a hangar full of half-educated, slack-jawed bigots chanting “lock her up” and cheering for tariffs and authoritarian, cruel immigration practices and policies.

        1. Stupid hicks make Libertarianism look bad. That is why Media Matters sends stupid backwoods half educated hicks like you to screw up this board. You called it Rev. Even an 8th grade dropout with bad dental work like you gets something right occasionally.

          1. Thanks John. Didn’t know about Media Matters.

            Makes sense that they would hire bloggers to post propaganda on websites like Reason since the MSM has propaganda spewing from their angle.

            1. loveconstitution1789|11.27.18 @ 3:29PM|#

              Thanks John. Didn’t know about Media Matters.

              Makes sense that they would hire bloggers to post propaganda on websites like Reason since the MSM has propaganda spewing from their angle.

              And they are out in force, when the truth gets close to being released.

              So, where are the passport records of Manafort making these trips?
              Or did the collusion to get Trump elected, begun years before anyone knew he would run, include the ability for his minions, as yet unhired, to evade customs and immigration authorities?

              1. Or did the collusion to get Trump elected, begun years before anyone knew he would run

                2016. Follow the news much?

                the ability for his minions, as yet unhired,

                It was around the time he was hired as Trump’s …. campaign manager … so it either helped him get the job, or perform it.

                Trump himself told us to NEVER believe you, that you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witnesses, If one would lie about murder, and this is so much less, both to defend him …. well ….

                Also note the bat-shit crazy conspiracy cited by John, upthread … which LC 1789 repeated, but lied about. Trumpsters are notorious for being suckered by wacko conspiracies (Trump as a Birther)

                Any questions?

        2. “Nothing advances or embodies libertarianism quite like a hangar full of half-educated, slack-jawed bigots…”

          Nothing makes you look more like a drooling idiot than your bigotry, asshole.

          1. I thought you goobers loved the poorly educated. Trump said so.

            1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.27.18 @ 2:54PM|#
              “I thought you goobers loved the poorly educated.”

              Not so; I’m told they all despise you, asshole.

      3. They are really Libertarian like that.

        Why do you constantly accuse Reason of favoring things it’s merely reporting on? They simply stated the fact that he was convicted of these things. They don’t even imply that they support prosecuting anyone for tax evasion. Is this something that all Republicans do?

        1. Some people can see between the lines on who, what, when, where, why reporting and some cannot.

          Its okay that you cant Juice, but you’re trying to rip on someone who can.

        2. They are reporting on this as if it is a known fact. And it isn’t, unless you have total faith in the intelligence community.

  13. Crying wolf again?

    How many more times do you expect the townspeople to come running?

    This time you really mean it, though! There really is a wolf!

    If there’s a trial, I might read the first paragraph of that story.

  14. Let’s say that all of this is true and Manfort on behalf of Trump plotted with Assange to leak the DNC emails. Okay. Assange is not a foreign agent or a foreign power. This is no different than any other campaign leaking dirt on their opponent to friendly journalists.

    This isn’t the first time someone in politics has had their emails hacked. Sarah Palin had all of hers hacked from when she was governor. And the NYT tasked their readers to crowd source the review of them hoping to find anything embarassing. And Palin was not in office at the time and not running for office. And the media and their toadies at reason now expect anyone to believe their grave concern over the DNC email server being hacked? Who the hell do these people think they are kidding?

    1. “Let’s say that all of this is true and Manfort on behalf of Trump plotted with Assange to leak the DNC emails. Okay. Assange is not a foreign agent or a foreign power. This is no different than any other campaign leaking dirt on their opponent to friendly journalists.”

      Regardless of whether anyone else did it, he released nothing other than factual information; there is not only nothing wrong with that, it should be applauded.

      1. >>he released nothing other than factual information; there is not only nothing wrong with that, it should be applauded.

        word.

    2. John, propaganda works. It does not work all the time.

      Lefties hope that their lies will work most of the time.

      Why else would black Americans vote the Democratic Party which is the Party of slavery, KKK, and segregation?

  15. They are turning on him because there is no other feather to even put in their cap.

  16. 1.What’s the big deal? Assange merely exposed that the DNC is a corrupt organization-remember-integrity is what you do when “nobody” is watching….

    2. If HRC were not such a shitty candidate with her own ethical issues, Trump would have been buried in a landslide.

    The Rev., Tony, OBL and all the rest of the progtards need to own up to this and move on. Until that happens, they will continue to be governed by bigoted, uneducated, science-denying, transphobic, gun-toting, primates.

    1. Imagine if it had gone the other way and Assange or hell the KGB had released a bunch of hacked emails that made Trump look bad. I am sure Tony and the Rev and the rest of these backwoods retards would be so concerned about Russian interference with elections.

      The whole thing is just comical. How can even this collection of retards say this shit with a striaght face?

      1. The good thing about not being a Republican toady is that we seldom have to make pathetic excuses for the terrible things our politicians do for power. Russia did not help Democrats in 2016. Thus it’s not a moral dilemma I have to deal with. If your pathetic lashing out is an example of that, thank goodness it’s you and not me. I’d hate to have to try to sleep at night knowing my preferred political party is favored by a foreign adversary precisely because of the damage they do to the US.

        1. So, you would not have given a shit if the KGB had actively done everything in its power to get Hillary elected. We already knew that Tony, but it is nice of you to confirm that you are a complete fanatical moron who has no pinciples or cares about anything other than your backwards politics. You are always good about reassuring us that yes, you are as stupid and craven as we think you are.

          1. Yes I would give a shit but you’re missing the point as usual. I don’t choose my politics based on blind, substance-free tribal loyalty. I choose them because they are in themselves superior, both practically and morally. If Democrats ever started being racist demagogues who sell out the country to foreign adversaries for amoral plutocratic ends, I’d reconsider my support with no compunction.

            1. Pallets of cash, anyone?

            2. I don’t choose my politics based on blind, substance-free tribal loyalty. I

              Sure you don’t Tony. You just can’t think of a single thing the Democrats are wrong about or a single thing the Republicans are right about. Jesus Christ Tony do you even listen to yourself? That has to be the funniest thing you have ever said. You really are an NPC.

              1. Which Democrat? They contain multitudes. I’m probably left of the center of the party platform, and I absolutely parted ways with both Obama and Clinton on a number of policy positions, but like you I realize that there are only two choices in this country. I just chose the correct one.

                1. There is more than two choices.

            3. >>>If Democrats ever started being racist demagogues

              cute.

            4. “…If Democrats ever started being racist demagogues who sell out the country to foreign adversaries for amoral plutocratic ends, I’d reconsider my support with no compunction.”

              Well, since she lost, you’re off the hook. Did you here about her selling political access for ‘contributions’?
              Just asking…

              1. Something you idiots call “free speech,” correct? The system is corrupt enough as it is without you wallowing in bullshit conspiracy theories.

                1. Fact, not a conspiracy that Bill’s speaking fees went up four-fold when Hillary was made Secretary of State.
                  Now one can interpret that fact a variety of ways. Both when you add in the shenanigans of the Foundation and email issues, it does raise questions, as does the identities of the organizations shelling out $500,000 for 30 minutes of Bill’s time. Would be wonderful to actually have oversight of this.
                  I’m sure you think they are squeaky-clean, but the optics suck.
                  As does the Chinese-linked donor handlers Hillary employed. As does her raiding the DNC coffers against DNC policy. As do a great many things.
                  Trump, for all his issues, appears far less corrupt than Hillary.

                  1. You say that with a straight face after the Trump Foundation is exposed as absolutely nothing more than a slush fund, something that is not true about the Clinton one.

                  2. “Fact, not a conspiracy that Bill’s speaking fees went up four-fold when Hillary was made Secretary of State.”

                    You don’t need to even assemble evidence; her ‘people’ sent emails arranging political access for donors.
                    WHILE she was SoS, for pete’s sake.

          2. So, you would not have given a shit if the KGB had actively done everything in its power to get Hillary elected.”

            Are you referring to the “leaked” Russian Dossier John. funny how no one wants to investigate how that came into being and not a violation of laws

      2. Imagine if it had gone the other way and Assange or hell the KGB had released a bunch of hacked emails that made Trump look bad.

        They might have done this, but perhaps Trump’s campaign outbid Hillary’s. Also conveniently ignored are the Clintons’ long history with Russia, the runway meeting with Bill Clinton and the US AG just before the election, and Comey’s decision to have FBI investigate Hillary. She stank worse than three day old tuna.

  17. WikiLeaks, meanwhile, quickly denied the Guardian’s report, indicating Manafort never met with Assange.

    Uh, huh. What do the Ecuadorian embassy records have to say?

    1. That is a great point. The fact that the Guardian didn’t bother to look and confirm this with the Ecuadorian Embassy and instead just went with anonomous sources is a pretty good tell this is a complete lie.

      1. There’s no point in trying to confirm with the Ecuadorian embassy because the Ecuadorian embassy is actually run by Russia.

        Russkies are everywhere

    2. I doubt Ecuador would release those records.

        1. I’m guessing they wouldn’t either, just to avoid any hint of taking sides in US internal affairs.
          If they did, and it didn’t happen, they’d have Tony snarling about the Russki-Ecuadorians!

  18. “A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.” – Guardian article

    This is nonsense. If Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic or anyone else’s emails, or anything else, they would NOT dump it to Wikileaks – anymore than the US intelligence community will release evidence claiming that they did. Intelligence agencies do not dump intelligence into the public domain for good reasons.

    1. Yes. If the KGB was reading the DNC’s emails, the last thing they would have done was let the world know they were and end their ability to do it. Intelligence agencies are fanatical about never revealing what information they have. The idea that the KGB hacked the DNC emails and released them to wikileaks is absurd.

      Wikileaks said they didn’t get the information from the KGB but got it from an insider at the DNC. What reason does wikileaks have to lie about that? Someone at the DNC took those emails and gave them to wikileaks just like wikileaks has said all along. Neither Trump nor Russia had anything to do with it.

      1. “Someone at the DNC took those emails and gave them to wikileaks just like wikileaks has said all along.”
        Because that person wanted America to see how the DNC had tried to cheat Bernie.
        Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most accurate.

        1. What reason does wikileaks have to lie about that?

          TO PROTECT HIS CLIENT!
          (DUH)
          LIKE YOU LIE — 20 TIMES PER PAGE TO PROTECT TRUMP …exactly as he said you would.

  19. Surely, slowly, it will be apparent to all that anyone in politics is rotten to the core.
    How anyone can “support” or “defend” any politician is beyond reason. There are no “good guys”.

  20. ” It’s also not clear what Manafort and Assange spoke about.”

    It’s also not clear what Manafort and Assange are alleged to have spoke about.

    You really shouldn’t just assume that anonymously sourced stories are automatically true.

    1. It is also not clear they met.

  21. Ah, here we are: the latest episode of “We’ve got him NOW!” How many times have they said this? I’ve lost track.

    If Mueller really does have the goods on Trump, I hope he lets us know before we all die of old age. After all, we’re paying for this little turd hunt and it’s supposed to accomplish something besides giving Mueller a lifetime job.

    1. Hey, he’s gotten two or three convictions for littering and several plea-deals for jay-walking!

      1. I saw a great cartoon that showed a cop with a citation book talking to a chicken at the side of the road. The cop is saying “I have you cold for jay-walking, but I will let you off if you answer just one question – – – – “

  22. So once again, an unnamed source is quoted by a left wing periodical, and once again this all-knowing, well placed, ultra-reliable source doesn’t even know when the event he is sure happened actually happened.
    I call bullshit.
    Sounds a lot like a certain gang rape party story that also had to be believed because it advanced the left wing agenda.

    1. Are you saying Christine Ford is the guardian source?

      1. I am saying no unnamed source is to be believed.
        At least she (unwillingly) was identified.

  23. It’s all bullshit.

    So wikileaks made the DNC look bad.

    Trump had abysmal optics going into the election, and Hillary still lost the presidency.

    It’s called “running a shitty candidate because it’s her turn now.”

    Get over it.

    1. The president of the United States just threw a dire scientific report in the trash because, well, basically he’s a fucking moron. There are good reasons not to get over it.

      1. Which scientific report is that Tony?

        1. loveconstitution1789|11.27.18 @ 3:41PM|#
          Which scientific report is that Tony?

          (snort) The one on climate change. Prepared by 13 government science and weather agencies … the FOURTH such report … as REQUIRED to Congress … by a law enacted in 1990 … by a Republican President (George HW Bush)

          PLEASE TRY TO KEEP UP. THAT WAS OVER A QUARTER-CENTURY AGO!

          This is on top of Trump trashing all 12 agencies in our own intelligence community … to hobnob with dictators. Because authoritarian.

          As Mueller closes in, he will continue acting crazier and crazier. For his entire adult life, he has has absolute authority over every matter affecting him. He cannot cope. Just as he could never cope with REAL business (he’s a real estate investor, payllaying $400 billion from his father, barely avoiding bankruptcy ans … the ONLY President forced to pay $25 million as a FRAUD settlement IN OFFICE)

          Ditto for the goobers who followed in this thread.

      2. Holy shit you’re an idiot.

      3. But who has time for global warming when there’s Stormy Daniels?

        That’s how you know we’re dealing with serious, serious people.

        1. It’s not my fault the president is so horrible in so many dimensions.

      4. We have plenty of dire scientific reports, Tony. The fact that Trump threw one in the trash doesn’t make the tens of thousands of other dire scientific reports less dire, let alone null and void.

        Try not putting all your hopes and dreams on the executive. Life will get a lot easier and a lot less stressful.

        1. All the sloppy Trump crotch munching in this thread and I’m the one putting too much trust in the president?

          1. As opposed to the hag ass-licking, ass-licker?

        2. We have plenty of dire scientific reports, Tony.

          On what topic? ((smirk)

          The fact that Trump threw one in the trash doesn’t make the tens of thousands of other dire scientific reports less dire, let alone null and void.

          He never said they did, which means the lefty has beat you … on intelligence, honesty or both.

          I MAY need to clarify. NONE of those other reports have fuck-all to do with this — except the three prior ones, as required by law to Congress, a law enacted by George H W Bush in 1990. So if you blew the easy stuff,,why trust you in science?

  24. Jeez, what a shitfest.

    Shorter Tony: “Orange man and Republicans bad. Obama and Democrats good.”

  25. From the Guardian article….

    “Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.”

    So apparently, the Guardian has no actual physical/written evidence, just hearsay from a high level source that for some reason hasn’t said anything until now. And apparently, Manafort also had enough chops with Ecuadorian Embassy security guards that they just let him in. Who knew?

    1. In a sane world, the fact that the embassy didn’t log Manfort would mean the sources are lying. In reason/gaurdian world, it means the embassy must have been in on it and let Manfort in without registering him.

      Assange never leaves the embassy. The embassy loggs everyone who enters it. If Manfort wasn’t on the log, he didn’t meet with Assange. This whole thing is fake news.

      1. fake news.

        You misspelled Luke Harding.

        1. You misspelled Luke Harding.

          Are you still confused on who wrote the article … probably because Greenwald lied about that,

      2. Assange never leaves the embassy. The embassy loggs everyone who enters it. If Manfort wasn’t on the log, he didn’t meet with Assange. This whole thing is fake news.
        There should also be a record in Manafort’s passport – easily subpoenaed by Mueller – to show visits to England at those times. Not definitive of where he went, while there, but absolutely able to prove he was not in that nation, at the time specified.

  26. Wikileaks embarrassed Hillary.

    Is there a more practical definition of royalty than the criminalizing any harm inflicted upon that person?

    Reason treating this revelation with any manner of credulity is profoundly disappointing.

    But also unsurprising. Principals not principles being the new leitmotif.

  27. Citing a “well-placed source,” the Guardian says Manafort went to see Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London around March 2016

    I don’t mean to get all Hugh Akston on you, but The Guardian didn’t say anything, Luke Harding, on the other hand did. Now normally I have no issue with saying “Publication says”, but I think in this case it’s important to note which particular journalist is behind this article.

    For those of you not keeping score at home, Harding is the one who wrote a horribly sourced and much debunked book on Russian collusion and was DESTROYED (I love it when those youtube videos come up, but in this case, he really was destroyed) by a left-wing youtube news channel questioning the facts in his book. Harding darted around the questions and kept referring to the fact that he’s been to Moscow, therefore he knows collusion when he sees it. Harding eventually shut off his skype feed when he was fully cornered by the interviewer.

    Also, Luke Harding has been blasted by Glenn Greenwald as a bullshit artist who writes about stuff he has zero knowledge of— referring specifically to Harding’s book The Snowden Files.

    1. Greenwald’s more abrasive side surfaces when the subject turns to a Guardian book, The Snowden Files, by Luke Harding, published in early February. “It is a bullshit book,” he says. “They are purporting to tell the inside story of Edward Snowden but it is written by someone who has never met or even spoken to Edward Snowden. Luke came here and talked to me for half a day without [my] realising that he was trying to get me to write his book for him. I cut the interview off when I realised what he was up to.”

  28. Oh, and the Guardian has already tweaked its headline. Nothing falls apart faster than a Harding story.

    1. Tonya’s brother?

  29. But no collusion,
    ROFLMAO

    1. The story is a lie dipshit. Even the Guardian is walking back on it. Just get some on some meds or something Hihn.

      1. I dunno John, every news outlet is reporting on it. Shouldn’t you work on your next story, like how it’s no big deal even if he did collude?

        1. Every news outlet is merely referencing the Luke Harding report. That’s how the news works. I would not hang my hat on anything Luke Harding reports. Luke Harding’s track record ranges from bad to awful. And like I posted above, when Glenn Greenwald calls you a bullshit artist…

          1. Oh, Mr. Greenwald weighed in, what a shock.

            1. He didn’t weigh in on this story, to my knowledge. He has weighed in on Mr Harding’s past terrible reporting and dubious use of unsourced “facts”– and tendency to write in-depth stories about people and situations he’s never met nor interviewed.

              1. Actually, shit I’m sorry, he did weigh in on this story.

                This is probably why the Guardian changed their story headline within hours to indicate sources said, instead of it reading like a fait accompli.

                1. The article ? from lead reporter Luke Harding, who has a long-standing and vicious personal feud with WikiLeaks and is still promoting his book titled “Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House” ? presents no evidence, documents or other tangible proof to substantiate its claim, and it is deliberately vague on a key point: whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign.

                  Classic Luke Harding.

                  1. whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign.

                    WRONG.

                    1. John Galt is back|11.27.18 @ 9:17PM|#
                      “WRONG.”

                      I’m not about to ask *you* for evidence; your “mental capabilities” are such that it’s obvious you don’t know what that word means.
                      Suffice to say you’re full of shit.

                    2. l’m not about to ask *you* for evidence … Suffice to say you’re full of shit.

                      (snort) It’s in the article on this page.
                      And in the Guardian.

                      And YOUR source … Greenwald LIES about who wrote the story

                      Must I quote Greenwalks a SIXTH time, saying Manafort and Assange could have met .. at the time claimed or other times?

                      DO YOU KNOW WHAT “confirmation bias” is? (sneer)

                    3. “Must I quote Greenwalks a SIXTH time, saying Manafort and Assange could have met .. at the time claimed or other times?’

                      Please do.
                      And you could add that Jesus *could* have walked on water. And that Hihn *could* be other than a fucking lefty ignoramus. And that it *could* be that the sun might appear to rise in the west tomorrow. And that gravity *could* push upward sometime in the future.
                      By all means, keep right on proving what a fucking ignoramus you are. Far be it from me to keep an ignoramus from his life’s work.

                    4. “Must I quote Greenwalks a SIXTH time, saying Manafort and Assange could have met .. at the time claimed or other times?’

                      Please do.
                      And you could add that Jesus *could* have walked on water.

                      Are you ALSO crazy enough to have said He couldn’t.

                      You got caught in yet another retarded lie. FULLY document.

                  2. Classic Luke Harding.

                    Check who wrote the story!!

                2. From the Greenwald story:

                  “It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.
                  […]
                  Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence before forming a judgment?”

                  Seems Greenwald is familiar with Tony, the assholish rev, and Hihn.
                  BTW, for a laugh, check up-thread where Hihn tosses out unconnected irrelevancies *with NUMBERS* and claims it to be “math”.

                  1. And:

                    ” “lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians.'”
                    […]
                    What does this report say about “Russians”? What is the context of the inclusion of this claim? The Guardian does not bother to question, interrogate or explain any of this. It just tosses the word “Russians” into its article…”

                    Yep, Tony, asshole and Hihn; let’s hear it: “RUSSKIS!!!!!”

                  2. Link to it, goober. (snort)

                    1. You pathetic piece of shit:

                      https://theintercept.com/2018/11/27/it-is-
                      possible-paul-manafort-visited-julian-
                      assange-if-true-there-should-be-
                      ample-video-and-other-evidence-showing-this/

                    2. You pathetic piece of shit:

                      That INVITES boldface

                      Now explain why you SWALLOWED anything as CRAZY as “there would be AMPLE video,..”

                      THIS IS HOW RELIABLE GOOBERS LIKE SEVO ARE ON THEIR SOURCES! (smirk)

                    3. You pathetic piece of shit, Greenwald cites multiple sources explaining to *rational* people how there is no way he could have visited Assange without being caught on video.
                      Given that rationality is not one of your qualities, I’ll leave you to your idiocy, shitbag.
                      And fuck off, Hihn.

                    4. And, you pathetic piece of shit, he pointed out that the Guardian, like you, that asshole and Tony, toss “THE RUSSKIS!” in to any discussion, minus one bit of evidence for anything regarding them.
                      That’s *EVIDENCE*, shitbag, not your whining about how that hag lost ‘cuz 3X7=950 if you look at it right!’

                    5. ANOTHER SevoLie

                      you pathetic piece of shit … asshole … shitbag … whining

                      Again DEMANDS bold … in self defense of aggression and verbal assault

                      you pathetic piece of shit, he pointed out that the Guardian, like you, that asshole and Tony, toss “THE RUSSKIS!” in to any discussion, minus one bit of evidence for anything regarding them.

                      PSYCHO LIAR. He NEVER says that about the Guardian

                      FACT
                      One more time (sigh) Greenwald’s own words
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      Again?
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      Again?
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      ….. …… …. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

                    6. MOAR SEVO FAILS!!

                      Now explain why you SWALLOWED anything as CRAZY as “there would be AMPLE video,..”FAIL!

                      CITES “UNKNOWN SOURCES” FOR HIS TEAM, BUT ATTACKS “UNNAMED SOURCES” BY THE GUARDIAN.

                      A-a-a-a-a-a-nd ………….. ASS-UMES TV cameras can film at night … OR that London is kept bright enough 24 hours per day!! ….

                    7. John Galt is back|11.27.18 @ 11:51PM|#
                      “MOAR SEVO FAILS!!”

                      No, one more example of Hihn’s straw-grasping.
                      You think cameras are installed for surveillance which do not record in the available light? I’ve got a wonderful deal on the south anchorage of a bridge, but you’ll have to act fast!
                      And no, those were not “un-named sources”. If you were capable of reading, you would have seen Greenwald’s specific sources named right in the article.
                      Fuck off, Hihn. Prove you’re an idiot someplace else.

                    8. BEND OVER SEVO. I prepared for THIS stupidity

                      You think cameras are installed for surveillance which do not record in the available light? I

                      WHY DO YOU ASS-UME THE OPPOSITE? (sneer)

                      THEY USE LED’S. AND HERE’S PROOF
                      This one is a “night vision” model

                      Youi goobers piss and moan that the Guardian has no evidence.
                      Then YOU have no evidence.
                      And even INVENT a total bullshit quote from Greenwald.

                      SHAME ON YOU

                    9. “THEY USE LED’S. AND HERE’S PROOF
                      This one is a “night vision” model”

                      Yep, Brit security agencies shop at Wally World!
                      That fucking ignoramus Hihn told me so.
                      They would never have the resources these guys do:
                      https://www.youtube.com/
                      watch?v=5ACRJNXxfh8

                      You are a laugh riot, on top of being a fucking ignoramus.
                      Fuck off, Hihn

                    10. You pathetic piece of shit … idiocy …. shitbag. … And fuck off

                      Again DEMANDS boldface …..

                      SevoLie

                      explaining to *rational* people how there is no way he could have visited Assange without being caught on video.

                      FACT:
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      (flush)

                    11. “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times ”
                      Shitbag, do you think people here are not familiar with fucking lefty ignoramuses cherry-picking quotes and data. Are you really so stupid as to hope no one read the entire article and notive you sort of, well, ‘missed’ part of the copy? Really? Here it is:

                      “It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.”
                      Yes, sarcasm, just like to part you cherry-picked. Stuff it up your ass you fucking ignoramus.

                    12. NO, I WAS PREMATURE. THIS IS TOTALLY OFF THE RAILS.

                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times ”

                      Shitbag, do you think people here are not familiar with fucking lefty ignoramuses cherry-picking quotes and data

                      You just attacked your own source ,.. with a line you got from ME

                      “It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.”

                      Did you FORGET getting caught LYING ABOUT THE SAME SENTENCE?? TWICE!!!

                      Yes, sarcasm

                      You FUCKING psycho
                      You SAID it was from Greenwald’s artcle.
                      I PROVED you full of shit.

                      NOW you say you were being sarcastic!!!

                      HOW DARE YOU? (vomit)

                    13. John Galt is back|11.28.18 @ 12:56AM|#
                      “NO, I WAS PREMATURE. THIS IS TOTALLY OFF THE RAILS.”

                      Too pathetic for response.
                      Start posting as some of your socks and arguing with yourself, and fuck off.

                  3. Sevo goes TOTALLY off the rails, aka PSYCHO

                    […]
                    “It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.[…]

                    Counting down the paragraphs
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5 “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times…”

                    EXACTLY AS I HAVE CITED …. SIX FUCKING TIMES

                    TOTALLY out of control.
                    It’s his raging hatred. We’ve all seen it. But never THIS crazy.

                    1. Did you have a point there, other than making it clear you are a fucking ignoramus?
                      I don’t have to repeat the quote cited to show you were simply cherry-picking and hoping a “could’ was sufficient to convince those with more than a 3rd-grade education of your claims.
                      It isn’t, and being the fucking ignoramus you are, I don’t doubt that is a mystery to you.
                      But to a 4th-grader, I’m sure they are all reading your ransom notes and wondering whether this guy is for real or not.
                      Kids, yes he seems to be, but it appears that senility has set in.
                      Oh, and fuck off, Hihn.

                    2. Sevo (stiil assaulting)
                      Did you have a point there, other than making it clear you are a fucking ignoramus?

                      That’s WHY I use boldface to defend from you thugs and assholes.
                      Anyone who cares to, can quickly scan the thread and see ALL your bullshit PROVEN. WITH LINKS.

                      Anyone who does NOT care about facts and truth is your sick tribe, And I don’t give a flying fuck what any of you think.

                      The boldface also allows me to ignore the rest of your spastic hissy fit.

                    3. “That’s WHY I use boldface to defend from you thugs and assholes.”
                      Yeah, ignoramuses like you are really drawn to magical ‘defenses’, which only serve to make it obvious how pathetic you are.

                      “Anyone who cares to, can quickly scan the thread and see ALL your bullshit PROVEN. WITH LINKS.”
                      I encourage all and sundry to peruse your cherry-picking and straw-grasping. It is an education on how to make yourself look like the ignoramus you are on the web.
                      Do you really think anyone is fooled by your idiotic claims of ‘proof’ when you are so clearly lying?
                      Fuck off, Hihn.

                    4. REPEATING FOR THE MORALLY CRIPPLED. FROM GLEN GREENWALD’S STORY — AS SWALLOWED BY EVERY GOOBER ON THE PAGE.

                      Again
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      Again?
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      Again?
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      Again?
                      “Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange ? either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times “

                      …. …. …. … CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

          2. That’s how the news works. I would not hang my hat on anything Luke Harding reports. Luke Harding’s track record ranges from bad to awful. And like I posted above, when Glenn Greenwald calls you a bullshit artist…

            Check the author, sweaty, errr. sweetie. Which CRUSHES both you and Greenwald.

            Thank you for playing.

        2. “Shouldn’t you work on your next story, like how it’s no big deal even if he did collude?”

          Shouldn’t you explain “collude” in a way which doesn’t make you look like the fucking ignoramus you are?

          1. You think ANYONE doern’t know what “collude” means by now!

            1. John Galt is back|11.27.18 @ 11:35PM|#
              “You think ANYONE doern’t know what “collude” means by now!”

              So, you pathetic piece of shit, you can’t explain it either.
              Fuck off, Hihn.

              1. I said the exact opposite. Essentially, only a fucking moron doesn’t know what it means.
                Which you have just confirmed.
                Yet again

      2. DIVERSION
        AND BULLSHIT BY BRAINWASHED GOOBERS

        1. Fuck off, Hihn.

          1. EVASION!!!!!

            1. Fuck off, Hihn!

              1. COWARDLY DIVERSION

                Who is Hihn (you replied to me)

                MOAR bellowing?

  30. Can we suppose that British and American law enforcement are very interested in nabbing Assange on any chance that he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy? Can we suppose the embassy is being watched night and day? Is it reasonable to think law enforcement is recording every person entering and exiting that embassy 24/7?

    If Manafort met with Assange during any time Assange has been in that embassy there will be a record and that record will be in Mueller’s hands and likely will be part of Mueller’s report.

    This is one of those situations where we don’t have to guess, we just have to wait.

    1. Manafort has had his plea bargain suspended … for multiple lies, which will have to be proven.
      That’s all secondary to when Trump gets dragged out of the Oval Office to trial and prison.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.
        You’re an imbecile.

        1. Sevo|11.27.18 @ 9:29PM|#

          Fuck off, Hihn.
          You’re an imbecile.

          That’s a very disparaging remark….to all the imbeciles in the world.

    2. “If Manafort met with Assange during any time Assange has been in that embassy there will be a record and that record will be in Mueller’s hands and likely will be part of Mueller’s report.”

      Mueller isn’t making the claim, and the Guardian has changed the headline to admit they have no proof. Here’s Greenwald (per Diane Reynolds (Paul.)’s link)

      “In 2015, Wired reported that “the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated 5.9 million CCTV cameras keep watch over our every move,” and that “by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day.” The World Atlas proclaimed that “London is the most spied-on city in the world,” and that “on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.”
      […]
      This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.”

      1. MOAR SEVO BULLSHIT!!!

        Guardian has changed the headline to admit they have no proof.

        Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say
        Trump ally met WikiLeaks founder months before emails hacked by Russia were published

        Here’s Greenwald (per Diane Reynolds (Paul.)’s link)

        What about after sundown? (snort)

        1. Shitbag, you are stupid enough that laughing at you is shooting fish in a barrel:

          “After reporting earlier that Paul Manafort and Julian Assange were holding secret meetings, ‘The Guardian’ editorial staff has now been caught quickly and quietly changing wording in their article, to try and cover their blatantly wrong and ‘ficticious story’.
          Apparently, in their zealousness to destroy anyone who could help bring down the Trump Administration, ‘The Guardian’ made a massive and deliberate miscalculation. In fact, the report that they published WAS titled:
          “Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange in Ecuadorian Embassy.”

          It was based on WAIT FOR IT?..ANONYMOUS SOURCES! Then within an hour and a half, the Guardian changed the headline to add “sources say”.
          https://evansnewsreport.com/2018/11/27/the-
          guardian-caught-peddling-junk-news-as-editors
          -scramble-to-change-story-on-manafort-
          and-wikileaks/

          I’m sure you reaally don’t enjoy proving how fucking stupid you are. Maybe you ought to unplug that keyboard and quit doing so.
          Fuck off, Hihn.

          1. Psycho? You decide. Now he ADMITS he lied.

            Shitbag, you are stupid enough that laughing at you is shooting fish in a barrel

            The link PROVES you are TOTALLY full of shit on the Guardian title.

            I’ll go slowly.

            This is your original claim

            the Guardian has changed the headline to admit they have no proof.

            Now you PROVE you lied.

            It was based on WAIT FOR IT?..ANONYMOUS SOURCES! Then within an hour and a half, the Guardian changed the headline to add “sources say”.

            You FAIL to show they admitted having no proof

            Even if you are NOT full of shit on a change … the “revised” headline says THE SAME THING.

            TELL US, SPANKY, WHY IS “SOURCES” DIFFERENT FROM “ANONYMOUS SOURCES?”

            Do you REALLY want us to believe that you NEVER KNEW that journalists use “sources” Often to protect that source? Ate you sure?

            YOU NEVER HEARD OF “DEEP THROAT?” Seriously?

            You DEMAND that we label you …. THAT stupid!!

      2. Mueller isn’t making the claim,

        TELL US WHAT MUELLER FILED TO PROVE MANAFORT;S PLEA BARGAIN SHOULD BE NEGATED FOR LYING..
        And what did he lie about?

        I didn’t think so.

        1. Is it drink? Senility? Congenital stupidity?
          I point out that Mueller didn’t make the claim and now I’m supposed to tell you, you pathetic piece of shit, what Mueller is claiming?

          1. (My tone and boldface in defense of MULTIPLE aggressions … by a serial stalker)

            I point out that Mueller didn’t make the claim and now I’m supposed to tell you, you pathetic piece of shit, what Mueller is claiming?

            Two short messages back …
            I said you have NO FUCKING CLUE what Mueller FILED.

            FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED FILED

            NOT WHAT HE CLAIMED

            But YOU claim to know what he had FILED … .WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC.

            I am now overwhelmed with guilt.
            This now FEELS LIKE i’m kicking a cripple.
            And it’s not nice to ridicule the severely handicapped

            But you’ll post most rage, hatred and foulmouth names … BECAUSE you always get HUMILIATED when you go beyond name-calling, bullying and aggression. Which is apparently all you can do

            Are your parents proud of what you’ve become?

            (My tone and boldface in defense of MULTIPLE aggressions … by a serial stalker)

  31. For Manafort to do a U-turn like this means he has been influenced. He is not stupid. Perhaps the fear of Novichok sprayed on his face, Polonium injected in his leg or some other heinous accident that could befall him has influenced him. Of course, a pardon for falling on the sword might be what he is after. He has nothing to lose at this point.

    1. We don’t need weird conspiracy theories at this point. If you want to speculate, please keep it out of the ‘Elvis’ alien love-child’ meme.

  32. Enough for me, but hey, you fucking ignoramus, keep posting!
    No one else posting here can make you look worse than you do.

  33. “What kind of bootlicking busybodies spend their spare time…” We all know what kind. Incels with narcissistic rage at a lack of supply. If they spent their time working on improving their job skills, they’d probably make enough money to attract someone or at least rent the desired GFE gratifications

  34. “What kind of bootlicking busybodies spend their spare time…” We all know what kind. Incels with narcissistic rage at a lack of supply. If they spent their time working on improving their job skills, they’d probably make enough money to attract someone or at least rent the desired GFE gratifications

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.