-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy
- Thread starter Shard Shinjuku
- Start date
Full statement:
Zoe Tillman @ZoeTillman
NEW: Statement from Paul Manafort about today's Guardian story, via a spokesman: "This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him."
Oh man
Cant wait for evidence of the contrary to come out in court then
I want to believe this. Guardian must be pretty confident to run the story.
If Manafort is lying, there are clearly documents/video to prove it, so I'm not sure what his goal is. Need more reporting.
If Manafort is lying, there are clearly documents/video to prove it, so I'm not sure what his goal is. Need more reporting.
Hi I need to see your receipts now.
What has been proven wrong in the Dossier, and what has been proven correct?
Speculation is that Gates (among others) has the proof, which Wikileaks, Assange and Manafort know, and are going with smearing the leaker/source as a serial fabricator. It kinda lines up.
Rudy is that you?
Much of the dossier has been collaborated. I think the only two things that weren't were the peeing on the bed and somebody being in Russia one Summer.
But you're definitely using Greenwald talking points like "Russia hysteria" so it's clear you're a fan.
Well as you said that's where critical thinking comes in.
The article doesn't sound far fetched at all but that was never my point. I truly do believe that Manafort has done alot of dirty shit. But that doesn't mean that I automatically believe everything that is written about him. Just as urging caution doesn't mean I think the Guardian is lying.
As explosive as these claims are, the lack of tangibles presented makes this kind of worthless. Legally, if there's no voice, video or text records of these meetings and if this "well placed source" isn't willing to testify then its worthless to Mueller.
I get that he posted this but he is still entirely irrelevant to my line of thinking. We can't let our opinions or stances be guided entirely by those who may share them.
If Trump 180'd and became a champion of climate change, would people start questioning environmental science?
He exposed mass surveillance programs that violated numerous civil liberties and was escaping persecution by flying to Ecuador, but his passport was cancelled by the US government when he was waiting for his flight to Quito in Moscow. Stop spreading government lies.
Snowden is the real patriot, and the government is the real traitor. It's people like you that will lead us to a dictatorship.
Yeah, that's a safe bet. Trump is just the first president that Russia nudged in office. Given the goal of sabotaging western democracy I bet they've eased in senators and house members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're not all Republicans (those it seems the vast majority are).
One can only hope that the Senate is flipped by this.
you understand he's not building his case on Guardian articles, right?
he has access to pretty much the entire allied intelligence apparatus
When in doubt always trust the guy convicted of multiple felonies.
It doesn't matter what he says now. He's already lied to the FBI.
OP
OP
No of course not. As I said before, Mueller has probably known about this alot longer than the Guardian has. I don't think its chance that this story is ran literally the day after Pompeo met with Valencia either.
That still doesn't make it any more likely than anything tangible exists.
Now THIS is more like it.
Russia hacking 21 election systems, Russia hacking into our electrical grids, Trump's secret server with a Russian bank, the pee tape, the Russia-Scaramucci story...there's plenty there that's been debunked. Just look at Louise Mench's entire Twitter feed. This story should be very easy to either prove or debunk - there should be 24/7 video surveillance on the Ecuadorian embassy that would clearly show Manafort entering on that date or not. See how quickly they were able to show everything that happened with Khashoggi in Turkey.
What I think is undoubtedly clear at this point is that Russia wanted Trump to get elected, they phished Podesta and leaked his emails in coordination with Wikileaks, and numerous people in his campaign had financial ties to Russians and lied to the FBI about it. I still don't see any evidence that Russia swung the election - every indicator points to the timing of Comey's letter as the single greatest factor that caused Trump to make up the difference on Hillary.
I don't discount the fact that there could be a smoking gun. I would put the odds of that at probably 60% if I was betting on this. But that doesn't mean we should throw out journalistic standards or give credence to every shoddily sourced claim as long as it reinforces our preconceived notions. If Mueller has evidence on Trump, it will come out in his report. Until then, let's remain skeptical where skepticism is warranted.
You can't claim that things that have actually been proven true or at the least have every indicator that they are true have been proven "false" with no explanation. That's not how this works. Where are your sources?
I'll repost because things seem to be derailing but this is honestly alot bigger than the Guardian story.
Yeah, that's one big citation needed, and immediately disqualifying in most parts. Please do tell us about the Marshall of the Supreme Court, though.
Only thing undoubtedly clear is your posts sound like they came from the perfect Fox news viewer. Rediculous. Hell, even half the things you proclaim as already being debunked haven't actually.
https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ised-election-ballots-20180301-htmlstory.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...us-grid-through-burlington-electric/96024326/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ikely-neither-secret-nor-a-trump-russia-link/
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html
This is exactly my point. Mensch is a kook and a conspiracy theorist who literally makes up bullshit...yet she's been invited onto CNN multiple times, she has a huge Twitter following, and she's repeatedly managed to get prominent "Resistance" members to share her bullshit because it feeds into their desire to see a conspiracy exposed.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
Or, hey, I get you, but you could also read that NBC piece I posted connecting a lot of dots. That's not really conspiracy theory bullshit, unless you count Corsi scrubbing all his emails connecting him to the treason goods.
I dont know why the hell you are propping up Mensch now since its been a long time anybody has given a shit about her around these parts. She started early on and her bullshit immediately became apparent.
You can stop propping up false conspiracy loons though as some evidence that all the news surrounding the Russia shit is somehow ridiculous. Disingenuous as fuck.
trump wasn't hacking the election from his laptop, debunked.
I never said all the news surrounding Russia is fake. Read my posts again. I'm saying that the hysteria over the Russia-Trump story has repeatedly caused otherwise smart journalists to discard standard journalistic practices of verifying claims and seeking proof and proper sourcing in order to be first to a story, giving Trump and his propaganda apparatus the ammunition to claim "fake news!" whenever one of these stories are debunked.
If that happens in this case, as it has happened many times in the past, it will only embolden the people who claim that the media is making up stories to tie Trump to Russia. That's why many of the best journalists have expressed skepticism towards The Guardian's story - not just Glenn Greenwald.
So much fake hysteria. Also, don't care about the actual news which is delegitimized by so much fake hysteria. Your work here is done, methinks.
1) How was it debunked that Russia targeted 21 states? Trump's DHS confirmed it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...trated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721
2) The story about the Trump Org server communicating with a Russian bank has decidedly not been debunked, per last month's reporting in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign
3) How has the piss tape been debunked? Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller denied that Trump had women stay in his hotel room while he was in Moscow, but Schiller was later given a handsomely paid job with the Trump 2020 campaign. That's not debunked: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...n-offered-trump-women-was-turned-down-n819386
4) Parts of the Russia-Scaramucci story CNN retracted were later corroborated by the New York Times: https://www.businessinsider.de/cnn-russia-scaramucci-dmitriev-meeting-new-details-2018-3?r=US&IR=T
Your entire line of reasoning is nonsense. For one thing, whether or not something is true is a function of its strongest arguments. What do you think your line of reasoning proves? That Jared Kushner didn't make two different claims regarding whether or not there was a meeting at Trump tower? That there hasn't been several clear attempts to obstruct the investigation? That there isn't an extensive list of indictments produced by the investigation? You don't have a point. It's all nonsense deflection and disingenuous arguing.
OP
OP
Why are people engaging with Clipjoint? He just came back from a ban for defending Bernie Sander's racist statements...
He also stans for Greenwald out of habit, so there's that. It's certainly a look.