(Update, Dec. 12: A former consul at the embassy is officially calling it — and previous Guardian reportage on Assange — fake news and demanding a public apology. It's clear by now this is most likely lies; that said, Assange isn't going to sue because at some point, he would have to leave the embassy as part of legal pleadings, would he not? I highly doubt the British government would let a third party represent him.)
Although Glenn Greenwald first cautioned to "let things play out," and as the Idries Shah I've often mentioned notes there are more than two sides to an issue (more on that below) in all likelihood, as Glenn himself later writes, it ain't true.
Why?
1. The Assange-hating reputation of Luke Harding. (Yes, a second byline is on that piece, but that may just be camouflage, because of ...
2. The Assange-hating reputation of The Guardian. But, let's backtrack to ...
1A. The plagiarism reputation of Harding, along with his #TheResistance, British division, reputation, over unfounded collusion claims.
3. The skeeziness of alleged evidence:
Third, it is possible that the document from the government of Ecuador and its very inaptly named current president Lenin by its Senain intelligence agency is itself false information and part of a concerted campaign.— @realDonaldTrump 🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) November 27, 2018
That's the best the Guardian can do? And, there's no PDF of said document with the story.
4. The vagueness of timeframes, including the 2016 visit, that Manafort met sometime "around" becoming Trump's campaign manager. (Harding will of course say he can't be more precise because Manfor(d) wasn't logged in.
5. The claims that Senain would be so meticulous to keep an off-the-books record yet misspell Manafort's name. (Is this to make it look more authentic?)
6. The claim of "Russians" also coming to the embassy, but miraculously, Harding, Guardian and Senain have no names for any of said Russians.
On the other hand, there could BE a third side.
First, why would Manafort visit Assange in 2013 and 2015? He would seem to have nothing to offer "Paulie" at this time, unless Assange had hacked some Ukrainian government emails that he never publicly dumped, which is theoretically possible, I suppose
But, Manafort could indeed have then visited Assange in 2016.
Carl Bernstein says that Robert Mueller IS investigating a 2017 meeting between Manafort and Ecuadorean President Lenin Moreno and asking if Assange was discussed.
The fourth side?
It's unclear if Harding and/or others put a bug in Mueller's ear before the Guardian finished up its story. (Most of the political Twitterverse has already assumed that Mueller's claim Manafort lied to him is related in some way or another to Assange.)
The fifth side?
Even if ALL the visits Harding claimed happened actually happened, no collusion has been proven. In fact, because of the vagueness of "Russians" in Harding's story, and zero timeline for when they allegedly dropped in the embassy, Harding has no way of tying any such Russians, should they actually exist, to Manafort and/or Assange anyway. (So, no, Emptywheel, along with Bmaz and other Kossacks, your wet dreams remain unfounded. They also remain unfounded in light of Thursday's Michael Cohen plea deal stipulations.)
Even if ALL the visits Harding claimed happened actually happened, no collusion has been proven. In fact, because of the vagueness of "Russians" in Harding's story, and zero timeline for when they allegedly dropped in the embassy, Harding has no way of tying any such Russians, should they actually exist, to Manafort and/or Assange anyway. (So, no, Emptywheel, along with Bmaz and other Kossacks, your wet dreams remain unfounded. They also remain unfounded in light of Thursday's Michael Cohen plea deal stipulations.)
I'd say it means Harding shot himself in the foot over nothing, even though Kossacks like Emptywheel and Bmaz are creaming their undies over this.
Harding probably claims that this just means he's waiting for his sources to tell him Part 2.
As for the Guardian? At one time, it was left-liberal, with vague tints of leftness for the UK and definitely for the US. Now, speaking of nothingburgers, that's exactly what it's become, and over far more issues than this.
That said, if Julian Assange could have kept his pants on in Sweden, or put them back on, in one of the countries in Europe where "no means no" is legally true, he'd never be in this state of trouble in the first place. Given both him and the American bipartisan foreign policy establishment, there'd be some other trouble instead, in all likelihood.
That said, if Julian Assange could have kept his pants on in Sweden, or put them back on, in one of the countries in Europe where "no means no" is legally true, he'd never be in this state of trouble in the first place. Given both him and the American bipartisan foreign policy establishment, there'd be some other trouble instead, in all likelihood.
And, another that said — there is no "deep state" in the darkest sense of the phrase machinating all of this. Nobody put a gun to Trump's head and told him to hire Mike Pompeo to run first CIA then State or John Bolton to be NSA. He did that on his own. (That's despite a new nutbar book by David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski, which I noted because The Mooch himself, Anthony Scaramucci, is now following me on Twitter.)
Update:
The sixth side? Mueller allegedly believes Jerome Corsi tipped off Roger Stone in advance of WikiLeaks' actual leaks. And, while that story is on the Guardian website, it's an AP story.
And, lead Brexiteer Nigel Farange did visit the embassy in March 2017, while an ally of his, Ted Malloch, supposedly was asked by Stone, at Corsi's request, to get advance copies of the emails in July 2016.
The seventh side? July 2016 is three months after Manafort's alleged last visit. And, neither the AP nor the Guardian's newest say that Manafort talked to either Corsi or Stone.
So, this update only confirms for me what I thought a week ago: Jerome Corsi is in definite trouble, and Roger Stone could well be next. As for Randy Credico? Stone may just be trying to drag him down and hide behind him, or he could actually have been dumb enough to get mixed up in this.
I still see no proof of a Manafort-Assange meeting. I still don't see Manafort doing that in 2016, especially if he knew about the Corsi-Stone approach. No need to get personally involved. And, Assange doesn't benefit him in 2013 or 2015. People on the ground in Russia, or eastern Ukraine, take care of his needs.
The eighth side? Harding was fed some fake news. Would be poetic justice, if true. (This is setting aside the issue of Politico running a piece under a pseudonym that forwards the ball on CIA claims about Putin while ignoring its own long history of media interference.)
Further update: The Beeb notes the Guardian weakening its story line, beyond what Wikileaks first noted. At the same time, it notes Assange has lied before on this issue, namely, about contacts with Stone.
===
As for a timeframe for action?
I say by Friday afternoon we see further "movement" from somewhere. The Guardian softened its initial story just a few hours after publishing to put a few indicative verbs in subjunctive mood. Whether more comes, or whether Assange and/or Manafort file their threatened suits remains to be seen.
There was no budging by Friday evening, but ... this new revelation means that the Guardian better do something close to a retraction soon. If not a full retraction.
Manafort's meeting in Ecuador with Lenin? He reportedly was working on a deal TO GET MANAFORT BOOTED from the embassy in exchange for aid to Ecuador. Kind of undercuts that whole collusion angle, doesn't it?
With that said, any Guardian-Harding backdooring of Mueller didn't happen. Now, maybe, somebody on Mueller's staff gave Harding a backdoor tip to undermine the findings of boss-man Mueller. Stay tuned.
And, this just gets worse yet.
First, the Guardian used a third byline on the print edition. A skeezix connected to the National Endowment for Democracies. Hit this Twitter thread. And Bezos Post is now officially calling out Harding and the Guardian.
===
This is inevitably going to get confounded with the Michael Cohen plea deal stipulations.
So, let us note that:
1. Cohen, or even Trump family members, talking to Putin grandees about Trump building projects in Moscow has nothing to do with election collusion
2. Re Manafort, there's no evidence he talked with Cohen about these issues
3. The newly-announced German investigation of Deutsche Bank is about the Panama Papers. Last I checked, there were lots of rich people in America and abroad, or rich companies thereunto, with connections to Democrats as well as to Trumpistas.
4. As for anybody meeting with Dmitry Peskov, surely, some foreign real estate magnate has met in the past with a White House press secretary.
5. Again, Putin is too smart, if he's this all-powerful, to use Trump as a deliberately chosen tool. For those who say, "his goal was sowing confusion," Putin could do that by other means, like the Facebook ads, without relying on someone who would be windsock even on confusion.
Update:
The sixth side? Mueller allegedly believes Jerome Corsi tipped off Roger Stone in advance of WikiLeaks' actual leaks. And, while that story is on the Guardian website, it's an AP story.
And, lead Brexiteer Nigel Farange did visit the embassy in March 2017, while an ally of his, Ted Malloch, supposedly was asked by Stone, at Corsi's request, to get advance copies of the emails in July 2016.
The seventh side? July 2016 is three months after Manafort's alleged last visit. And, neither the AP nor the Guardian's newest say that Manafort talked to either Corsi or Stone.
So, this update only confirms for me what I thought a week ago: Jerome Corsi is in definite trouble, and Roger Stone could well be next. As for Randy Credico? Stone may just be trying to drag him down and hide behind him, or he could actually have been dumb enough to get mixed up in this.
I still see no proof of a Manafort-Assange meeting. I still don't see Manafort doing that in 2016, especially if he knew about the Corsi-Stone approach. No need to get personally involved. And, Assange doesn't benefit him in 2013 or 2015. People on the ground in Russia, or eastern Ukraine, take care of his needs.
The eighth side? Harding was fed some fake news. Would be poetic justice, if true. (This is setting aside the issue of Politico running a piece under a pseudonym that forwards the ball on CIA claims about Putin while ignoring its own long history of media interference.)
Further update: The Beeb notes the Guardian weakening its story line, beyond what Wikileaks first noted. At the same time, it notes Assange has lied before on this issue, namely, about contacts with Stone.
===
As for a timeframe for action?
I say by Friday afternoon we see further "movement" from somewhere. The Guardian softened its initial story just a few hours after publishing to put a few indicative verbs in subjunctive mood. Whether more comes, or whether Assange and/or Manafort file their threatened suits remains to be seen.
There was no budging by Friday evening, but ... this new revelation means that the Guardian better do something close to a retraction soon. If not a full retraction.
Manafort's meeting in Ecuador with Lenin? He reportedly was working on a deal TO GET MANAFORT BOOTED from the embassy in exchange for aid to Ecuador. Kind of undercuts that whole collusion angle, doesn't it?
With that said, any Guardian-Harding backdooring of Mueller didn't happen. Now, maybe, somebody on Mueller's staff gave Harding a backdoor tip to undermine the findings of boss-man Mueller. Stay tuned.
And, this just gets worse yet.
First, the Guardian used a third byline on the print edition. A skeezix connected to the National Endowment for Democracies. Hit this Twitter thread. And Bezos Post is now officially calling out Harding and the Guardian.
===
This is inevitably going to get confounded with the Michael Cohen plea deal stipulations.
So, let us note that:
1. Cohen, or even Trump family members, talking to Putin grandees about Trump building projects in Moscow has nothing to do with election collusion
2. Re Manafort, there's no evidence he talked with Cohen about these issues
3. The newly-announced German investigation of Deutsche Bank is about the Panama Papers. Last I checked, there were lots of rich people in America and abroad, or rich companies thereunto, with connections to Democrats as well as to Trumpistas.
4. As for anybody meeting with Dmitry Peskov, surely, some foreign real estate magnate has met in the past with a White House press secretary.
5. Again, Putin is too smart, if he's this all-powerful, to use Trump as a deliberately chosen tool. For those who say, "his goal was sowing confusion," Putin could do that by other means, like the Facebook ads, without relying on someone who would be windsock even on confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment