Wikileaks Offered The Guardian $1M And Editor’s Head That Manafort Never Met Julian Assange
There are calls for the Guardian‘s editor-in-chief to resign as they face accusations of publishing a “fake news” story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on 27 November.
The Guardian article accused Assange of holding “secret talks” with Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, citing anonymous sources.
The ‘allegation’ could strengthen efforts to extradite Assange to the US, where he may face the death penalty.
A news outlet should not have this much power.
WikiLeaks, in response, is preparing to sue the Guardian for running the story.
WikiLeaks offered the Guardian a million and the Editor’s head to prove the article is true:
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange. https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn
“WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story "Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy" -- which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news.”
WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story "Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy" -- which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news. https://t.co/VaoMESN5RO
WikiLeaks denied the accusation publicly beforehand, but the Guardian did not initially include the denial.
The "Guardian"'s Luke Harding wrote to former lawyer Melinda Taylor just hours before publication. WikiLeaks then tweeted Harding's email publicly, outing the "Guardian"'s fake news disaster prior to publication. The "Guardian" didn't include the denial and ran regardless.
Hours later, the Guardian added that WikiLeaks’ denied the allegations, along with a series of changes to the content as well as the headline, and introduced uncertainty to the assertion. Within the article, the Guardian doesn’t notify its readers of any of the updates.
Authors Dan Collyns and Luke Harding wrote:
“It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed.”
Republican and lobbyist Manafort is also considering legal action:
“This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.”
The Guardian has offered no evidence, in the article, that the meetings took place, nor given any exact dates for when they allegedly happened.
The Guardian alleges one meeting happened at some point in 2013, another sometime in 2015, and one in March 2016.
In a little over four hours, the article had received over 87,000 shares.
The allegation comes just after US court documents indicated that the US has prepared an indictment against Assange.
On Twitter, commentators denounced the Guardian’s behavior:
In sum, the Guardian published an article today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story. That's a media pattern we've seen over and over in this story. https://t.co/1s9E3trp5f
The Guardian‘s accusation against Assange perfectly feeds into the narrative from the US security services. The US intelligence services along with the Democrats and most of the liberal biased media establishment claim that Trump, Assange, and Russia worked together to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election.
The Guardian presents that widely disputed allegation as outright fact in the new piece. Harding and Collyns claimed that “months” after the alleged meeting in March 2016:
“WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.”
But forensic evidence has pointed to a leak from inside the Democratic Party, not a Russian hack.
During the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released a huge bank of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.
In response to the damaging email release, the US intelligence community and the liberal biased media maintains that Russia hacked the DNC.
Former FBI director James Comey claimed that Russia passed the emails to WikiLeaks through a proxy.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former intelligence officials, produced independent forensic analysis that backs up WikiLeaks’ long-standing claim that the emails were leaked and not hacked.
The person behind the release “copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds”, which is faster than possible with a hack. VIPS co-founder Ray McGovern, who analyzed Russia at the CIA for decades says:
“The evidence that we have now is forensic… You would wonder why the people composing that CIA, FBI, NSA document… didn’t do any forensics…”
The US intelligence community’ document contained no evidence. McGovern and William Binney, who was a high-ranking NSA official for 30 years, have insisted since 2016 that this was because the signs point to a leak and not a hack.
In the new piece, the Guardian writes:
“But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation convicted former Trump campaign manager Manafort earlier this year on fraud charges, unrelated to Russia.
What’s being ignored by the liberal biased media is that Mueller’s record on facts does not bode well. Mueller made false testimonies before congress, on camera, enabling the 2003 invasion of Iraq,:
On 11 February 2003, Mueller testified before Congress:
“As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.”
The Democratic establishment and the US intelligence services are not trustworthy and neither is the Guardian, seemingly publishing a major fake news story linking Assange to Trump.
WikiLeaks has published stories damaging governments across the world, including Russian ally Iran, Kenya, and China, as well as the UK.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are among the organizations backing Assange, who is now an Ecuadorian citizen, and calling for the UK government to protect him from extradition to the US.
Julian Assange is facing persecution from the Democrats and liberal biased media for revealing the ugly truth within the Democratic Party and the Deep State, yet The Guardian is allowed to aide in the deception to bring him to their so-called “justice”?
Julian Assange has remained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years.
By: Lexy On Twitter? Follow me: @PoliticallyRYT Have Information? Message me!