Will Manafort Sue The Guardian? Former Trump Campaign Chair Declares Assange Story “Totally False and Deliberately Libelous”

UnknownIn my column yesterday, I discussed the major news story out of the Guardian that former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort repeatedly met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Guardian reported that  Manafort visited Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016. That last visit allegedly occurred around the same time as Manafort’s selection as Trump campaign chair. Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency reportedly said that the logs include “Paul Manaford [sic]” and mentioned “Russians.”  Now however Manafort and Wikileaks have completely denied the story and Manafort charged that the story is “totally false and deliberately libelous.”  If so, that could lead to an interesting defamation lawsuit that should be relatively easy to prove either way.

After the story hit, WikiLeaks said on Twitter that it was willing “to bet … a million dollars and the editor’s head” that the story was wrong and that the group is launching a legal defense fund.

Manafort stated “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. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter.”

Over 50 years ago, the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan set the governing standard for public officials (and later extended to public figures) in suing critics.  The Supreme Court recognized the danger of such civil liability in creating a chilling effect on reporters and their companies in the coverage of political figures. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Justice William Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system. The “actual malice” standard requires a showing that the newspaper published a false report with either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

If Manafort is telling the truth, this could be an actionable case.  While the Guardian cites sources, the story was a shocker precisely because it seemed so unlikely given the level of surveillance that such visits would not have been confirmed before now.  Moreover, it would have been surprising for the Special Counsel to go after other figures in the Russian hacking allegations but never mention these meetings in the “speaking indictments” filed with federal courts.

Accordingly, this would be a fascinating legal action for Manafort to bring.  The question is whether he wants a new legal challenge when he has a Special Counsel declaring him in violation of a plea bargain and a jail sentence that could keep him in jail for the rest of his life if Mueller gets his way.

 

138 thoughts on “Will Manafort Sue The Guardian? Former Trump Campaign Chair Declares Assange Story “Totally False and Deliberately Libelous””

  1. Nobody who has been paying attention at all thinks Robert Mueller is a sucker, but he may be even smarter than people have realized.

    he has been in the law-enforcement business most of his life and has seen every flavor of crook and liar on the planet by now. It is entirely possible that he realized Manafort was lying from the get go (possibly due to what Gates told him) and fed Manafort misleading or incomplete information with the expectation that it would get back to Trump one way or another. It is also entirely possible that Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions may be based on what Trump thinks Mueller knows, rather than what Mueller actually knows. Consequently, his answers may be imaginative.

    If Mueller catches Trump on the answers, that could result in a finding of perjury.

    1. “Prosecutor”,
      Offhand, I can think of several possible scenarios as far as the interaction between Mueller and Manafort.
      The one that you mentioned, that Mueller is/ was somehow using Manafort to mislead the Trump defense team.
      Another possibility is that Manafort was “playing” Mueller, acting as a “plant”, and able to relay useful information back to Trump’s lawyers under the Joint Defense Agreement.
      They also could have been “playing” each other, looking to gain some advantages/ knowledge from a dozen+ interviews.
      Another possibility is that Manafort could not provide the incriminating evidence against Trump that would help Mueller nail Trump.
      It’s possible that Manafort actually started out cooperating, but became convinced that Mueller would not come through with a good enough “break” in sentencing…..so Manafort went “all in” for a possible pardon, rather than accept a plea deal that could still have him behind bars for life.
      You and I and others could probably add to the list of “possibles” here.
      I don’t have a “pet theory” that I’m convinced is correct, or that I’m promoting, because with all of the unknown variables at this point.
      If Mueller ever gets around to wrapping this thing up, we should have a better idea at that point.

      1. I anticipate the Mueller investigation will take until late 2019 or early 2020. The Watergate investigation was much less complex than this one, and it took about two years.

        I believe this one will take 2 years at a minimum due to the presence of international suspects.

        Here is an excellent article written by a former professor of mine comparing the two cases:

        https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-watergate-road-map-reveals-about-improper-contact-between-white-house-and-justice-department

        1. The Watergate investigation was much less complex than this one,

          If by ‘complex’ you mean ‘undertaken under false pretenses in search of imaginary offenses’.

        2. “Prosecutor”,
          I think that the public is reaching, or has reached, a tipping point as far as patience with The Special Counsel investigation.
          I won’t plaster links of polls that reflect that, because we’d be in “dueling poll links” contest until dawn.
          A lot depends on who’s doing the polling, and the question(s) asked.
          E.G., there is a strong minority, perhaps a majority, of those polled who feel that it’s time for Mueller to “wrap it up”.
          If the question is “should Mueller be allowed to finish his investigation”, the same sample group might give a different answer.
          So that group can essentially be on both sides of the same fence, depending on how the question is asked.
          Mueller was supposedly charged with determining if there was illegal cooperation with the Russians in the 2016 election on the part of the Trump campaign.
          The legality of “The Russian Dossier”, and involvement of foreign actors in that project, was never on the table.
          So the specific targets are Trump and those associated witb his campaign.
          Mueller has largely wrapped up the FBI investigation of Manafort that began in 2014, a few years before Mueller was appointed.
          So he gets the convictions for tax and money laundering violations.
          If there was “something there” that actually went to the main reason for which the Special Counsel was supposedly established, Mueller has not produced it.
          I know, “it’s coming, he’ll get there”. But that view is far from universally shared, and since this d***ing around has gone on and on, many who were inclined to give Mueller a lot of leeway are getting sick of this mute, stone-faced, horsed-face’s failure to reach some conclusions.
          His “I’m above it all” approach re accountability and focus will now make it that much more difficult for him to “sell” any conclusion he reaches.
          The article you posted was fairly long, so I skimmed through it pretty fast.
          I’m more familiar with the activities of Bruce and Nellue Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe, etc. than I am with the article’s co-author, Jim Baker.
          I don’t think he is at DOJ anymore, at least not in his previous position.

      1. Most of the world fell for the WMD lie.

        Saddam Hussein was trying to create the false impression that he had a formidable arsenal because he thought it would have discouraged an invasion.

          1. Yellowcake was found in Iraq and we know Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. The CIA is not perfect but the same people who say it isn’t perfect are the same people who tied the CIA’s hands behind its back. We are Monday morning quarterbacks constantly changing our mind when some people actually have to draw firm conclusions. The people have to balance security with freedom.

    2. ” in a finding of perjury”

      Aside from Manafort’s ancient past the most Mueller can even claim is perjury as in perjury trap. They seem to be going after Corsi for forgetting about an email he sent that he had voluntarily given to Mueller. This is not about justice its autocratic justice. In the meantime the people of America suffer because its leadership can’t focus on the important things like budget control, health care, infrastructure, ending wars one of which is almost as old as most of our men in uniform.

      If Trump is guilty of something he should have been charged already. If Hillary is guilty of something she should have been charged. That doesn’t seem to be what a lot of people care about now a days.

      1. Trump won’t be charged before the investigation is complete. The way a good prosecutor works is to start with the small fish, like Corsi and Papadopoulos, get their testimony about medium fish like Stone and Cohen, and then get them to flip on the big fish like Trump.

        If Corsi clearly and repeatedly says that Stone was deeply involved in making the Democratic e-mails public, then when Mueller finally gets around to interviewing Stone, the latter is going to be under a huge amount of pressure to spill the beans on Trump.

        Stone has said that he will never do that, but that is just brave talk. he’ll fold like a cheap suit. He won’t go to prison for years just to save Trump’s neck.

        1. The entire affair is bull. I’m not saying Trump is perfect or even that he is good. The entire investigation is founded on irresponsible management by the leaders of the FBI, CIA and DNI. The leaders of these agencies have proven so in their own words over and over again. Mueller shouldn’t even be investigating as he is too involved and Rosentein should have recused himself.

          What you are doing is succumbing to one side of the story. A real judicial system has two parts that provide evidence. The prosecutor and the defense. What you have been listening to is the prosecutor who selectively chooses the information he desires to make his case. A lot of that information both correct and incorrect has been pounded into the American public’s mind by the media which has not done what the media is supposed to do, report both sides without bias. The defense will promote its views and leave out those things it doesn’t like. We then join the too together and if a jury is involved it is up to the prosecutor to prove its case.

          Based on what we know today and all the players involved the prosecutor has no case against Trump (involving Russia) whether one likes Trump or not. You have a different mindset than I. You beleive guilty until proven innocent and you probably cheer when the prosecutor uses tactics that I find reprehensible and totalitarian. Then again we are different people. I actually believe in our Declaration of Independence “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness” and our Constitution.You seem to believe more in the word “If” as in “If Corsi clearly…” and guilty without proof as in ” a huge amount of pressure to spill the beans on Trump.” which assumes Trump is guilty and has to prove himself innocent.

          1. I haven’t presumed that Trump is guilty. I think it is extremely likely that Stone was in cahoots with Assange because he tweeted about WikiLeaks disclosures less than one day before they were published. This is circumstantial evidence of Stone’s involvement.

            One possibility this raises that is very likely but never discussed by Turley is the Trumps knew about Russia’s cybercrimes but didn’t report them to law enforcement.

            This is not necessarily criminal but it’s not something America deserves from its commander-in-chief.

            1. “I haven’t presumed that Trump is guilty”

              If that is so then what do you mean by this, ” spill the beans on Trump”? Are you talking about Lima Beans?

              ” Stone was in cahoots with Assange”

              Your evidence is too weak to make such a statement. There are many alternative explanations that are just as likely. There is no direct connection and even if he spoke to Assange, which he didn’t, that is not illegal nor does it demonstrate illegality.

              ” the Trumps knew about Russia’s cybercrimes but didn’t report them to law enforcement.” That is something that has been well known to everyone. What specific knowledge did Triump have that he should have reported? What is the criminal act that you are referring to? I think Trump made such statements (already known) publically long ago about different countries that were taking advantage of us illegally. What about China? Did you ever bother to look at what politicians including the Clintons did to make China a strong enemy instead of a weak one?

              You don’t like Trump. We get that. Don’t vote for him, but don’t destroy the nation because your guy didn’t win.

            2. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – you are assuming it was Russia. Personally, I think it was an inside job that was downloaded to a flash drive and then uploaded to Wikileaks.

              BTW, the government already knew about the Russians, supposedly the reason for the investigation into candidate Trump.

        2. Trump won’t be charged before the investigation is complete.

          Uh huh. This is the lamest, slowest special prosecutor investigation on record. Even the interminable Walsh investigation was a quick step compared to this one. You and Diane, keeping hope alive.

    3. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – if he was so smart why did he have to fall back on ten year old crimes to prosecute Manafort and Gates? And he ended up making Manafort look sympathetic. How smart is that?

      If people like Mueller where not immune from civil suit, he would be in debtor’s prison.

    4. “[Mueller] has been in the law-enforcement business most of his life and has seen every flavor of crook and liar on the planet by now.”
      *************
      An pd conveniently while at DOJ, all he had to do to find them was walk down the hall!

  2. Do schools and universities teach the lessons of the horrendous natures of Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Orwell’s “1984” and the Chinese

    Cultural Revolution?

    Liberal stridency, incoherence and hysteria are on the verge of dominion in America.

    America is wantonly assimilating the newspeak, “fake news,” disinformation, propaganda and indoctrination of narcissistic, power hungry

    collectivists floundering in psychoneurosis.

    That can’t be good.

    And that can’t be good for America’s thesis of freedom and it’s Constitution.
    ___________________________________________________________

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    – Edmund Burke

    1. Rest assured, crazy georgie, the vast majority of your fellow Americans don’t have the same type of alien thoughts that you do. So go to your final resting place secure in the belief that none of your cockamamie thoughts–that minorities and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, not least among them–will never come to pass. Rest in peace, we hardly knew ya and the world won’t miss ya.

      this is to “I trade my meds for access to other patients’ internet privileges” georgie – paulie

      1. He certainly gets this right — his ending quote:

        “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

        – Edmund Burke

  3. While we are engaged in this frivilous talk surronding a made up crime against the President (leaving Manafort out of the picture) I wonder how many know that the Honduran President’s brother has been charged for drug trafficking with the help of Honduran Politicians and police.

    Anyone care to think about the risk on our southern border when the people are coming from a nation where the leader’s brother is a leading drug trafficker and criminal? Anyone want to guess where the funding for the buses, water, food, toilets etc. is coming from? The High Comissionar from the UN is said to be involved along with a number of other groups. The “caravan is 90-95% young men. How many are criminals and involved in drug trafficking? Do not any of the sanctimonious one’s on this list care about America’s drug crisis?

      1. I’m glad to hear you are worried about that in-between your other interests. I hope more are worried as well, but I haven’t heard much thought on protecting the southern border. In the end all of these things are tied together .

  4. Hi guys, I just learned something new about the JFK assignation that intrigues me.

    The greatest American sniper of the Vietnam era and beyond was Carlos Hathcock. If you like sniper stories there are many books on him. Long Trang, white feather, they called him. 93 confirmed kills. He stalked an NVA general crawling across an open field for days on his belly and took him out; he had a mile long kill decades before it was ever repeated again in Afghanistan

    Carlos Hatchcock was a lifetime USMC sniper and cherished hero. At Quantico, they set up the Warren Omission’s “lone gunman” Lee Harvey Oswald scenario. Guess what? America’s greatest living sniper could not repeat the alleged miraculous three shot scenario. essentially it is impossible that it went down the way the Warren Commission said it did. Gunny Hathcock said:

    “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did”.

    http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?50970-Kennedy-assassination-Gunny-Hathcock-s-take

    PS sorry did I call it the Warren Omission, instead of Comission? Slip of the tongue that’s all

    1. Kurtz, in 1967, CBS News spent a million dollars producing a special documentary on the Kennedy Assassination. In 1967 a million dollars was ‘more’ than the budget of most movies. So it was a very high-profile project for CBS.

      According to Mike Wallace in his book “Close Encounters”, the CBS team had ambitions of contradicting the Warren Commission. To that end they closely replicated the height, distance and angle of Osward’s shots from the Texas Book Depository using a professional marksmen. And to their surprise, the marksman did indeed hit the moving target!

      So I don’t know where this Quantico story come from involving Carlos Hatchcock. But the Kennedy Assassination, as you probably know, became an industry catering to conspiracy theorists.

      1. The CBS team was not able to successfully replicate the JFK assassination the way that the Warren report claims it happened. In fact, no Marxman in history (pun intended) has ever replicated the astonishing stunts that Lee Oswald purportedly accomplished on November 22, 1963. So not only was a magic bullet used, but a magic gunman with no motive also exhibited his magical abilities that day. Here’s the video of CBS’s failed attempts to replicate the Warren report’s claims.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg

        Of course, the media likes to downplay the fact that certain members of the Warren Commission didn’t even believe the Warren Report. But that’s another story. Here’s an article if anyone’s interested.
        https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1136&context=fac_pm

        1. In fact, no Marxman in history (pun intended) has ever replicated the astonishing stunts that Lee Oswald purportedly accomplished on November 22, 1963.

          You can find quite ordinary Youtubes where local instructors make shots at that distance. The limousine was a moving target, to be sure, but only advancing at 8 mph.

            1. not two fatal hits, of course Connely survived his gunshot and JFK did not. but 3 shots, 2 hits, on two different men

              it’s hard to keep it all straight; how many times was JFK hit? wasnt there one hit they called a gunshot wound then decided later it was a tracheotomy wound? I guess it doesnt matter, but the way i see it, lots of problems, at every level with the official story.

              and, plausible alternative explanations too. but that’s all debunked by the usual sources and authorities.

              1. Kennedy was hit twice. One bullet entered near the base of the back of the neck exited out the throat. You can see the neuromuscular reaction on the Zapruder film as the president goes into ‘Thorburn’s position’, arms akimbo. The second bullet entered the back of the president’s head and caused his skull to explode.

                1. Oswald’s life reads like an assassin’s. He was a pathological loner all through childhood. Moves to the Soviet Union expecting special treatment. Winds up in a factory instead working with former peasants. That wasn’t Oswald’s plan, of course.

                  So Oswald takes his Russian wife to Dallas where his mom has settled. The Russian wife adjusts quite well but Lee is pissed-off more than ever. The only job he can get is stacking books at the depository.

                  The route of Kennedy’s motorcade was only planned the day before the shooting. That was enough for Oswald. A huge opportunity for a pathological loser who happens to own a rifle. One living at a boardinghouse because his wife just dumped him.

                  Oswald had a chance to place himself in history as a super mystery man. And one should note that Oswald left work shortly after the shooting. He went straight to his rented room to clear out fast as possible.

                  Then Oswald shot the Dallas cop who pulled up as Oswald hurried from the boarding house. This suggests Lee Oswald wa capable of murder. Oswald even tried to punch the cop who grabbed him at the move theater.

                  Oswald guns down a cop while fleeing both employer and residence in the middle of Friday afternoon. He’s fleeing and shooting at cops! And punching cops as well. Performing like a commando to the very end.

                  These are all basic facts of the Oswald case; a former Army sniper embarking on terror. It all works for me as a convincing story.

                  1. A skilled sniper could easily have shot Kennedy at that distance from above. Trained snipers are now able to hit targets 3,540 m away. It was done in Iraq last year.

                    1. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – better drugs, better rifles, better scopes, better ammo, hand-held computers to do the calculations. Plus a spotter.

                    2. PME:

                      “A skilled sniper could easily have shot Kennedy at that distance from above. Trained snipers are now able to hit targets 3,540 m away. It was done in Iraq last year.”
                      *****************************
                      No sniper then or now would have used a twenty-three-year-old, surplus, mail order 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle with a telescopic sight he bought for $20.00 total. The Warren Commission, the FBI and CBS News all tried to duplicate the shooting sequence with that rifle and they failed to find even one marksman who could fire the three rounds and make two kill shots on one attempt within the allotted time. The FBI even had to stop the vehicle to make it work. US snipers In Iraq used/use a variant of the Barrett Firearms MRAD series or the Remington MSR. Btw, Oswald was a patsy.

                  2. Peter Hill – the whole story has never fit together. We still do not have all the parts of the puzzle. Maybe if we got those missing pieces it would finally make sense.

                  3. Actually, Peter, Oswald tried to shoot a cop when he was confronted in the movie theater.
                    But since the Dallas PD “must have been in on the conspiracy”, let’s throw that little incident out.
                    The alias A. Hiddel was found on Oswald as an I.D.
                    The rifle, and probably the.38, were delivered to him at the P.O. Box he rented under that alias.
                    Again, since the Dallas PD was in on the “plot”, that phony Oswald I.D. “must have been planted” on Oswald.
                    The multiple witnesses either saw Oswald shoot Officer Tippet “must have been in on the plot”, as well.
                    I’ve pointed out many more “plots” against Oswald, and why the mountain of incriminating evidence against him can all be “explained away”.
                    It gets beyond ridiculous.
                    As much as I really, really hate to admit it😉😂, I agree with you that Oswald shot JFK.

                    1. Tom Nash – not to get into the conspiracy too much, but after hearing interviews with the Dallas detectives, it is strange that he was not given an attorney and not questioned about Kennedy before he was shot. He makes an odd statement to the reporters just before he is shot.

                2. Wretched………YEARS ago I had the amazing privilege of sitting at Nellie Connally’s lunch table in Austin, as she pulled a handful of faded legal pad pages out of her purse. On these faded sheets of paper were written the thoughts she recorded about the shooting, written that very day, Nov 22, 1963, while sitting in Parkland.
                  At the lunch table, she was nervous, as she rustled through the faded pages trying to organize them. She had been asked to speak at this luncheon to a group of women, whose husbands were state officials, or former officials.
                  She told those of us sitting at her table, that she had not looked at her “notes” since that awful day. And now she was about to speak for the first time ….reading from those historic written memories.
                  It was really incredible to watch her read from those faded yellow pages.
                  In her notes, she had written that there were three shots, total.

                  1. Cindy no matter who’s telling their story we have to be careful as to the truthfulness of it.

                    For example had GW Bush/Mueller saved a few pieces of steel from the 911 Twin Towers test could still be ran to proof a story, but they say they destroyed Evidence of Murdersof 911.

                    Noble lie
                    In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.
                    More at Wikipedia

                    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=a+noble+lie+documentary&t=h_&ia=videos

                    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_officer.htm

                    And keep in mind it’s their story, Not Mine, thus make them prove their story as it isn’t my job to make their case.

                    I’ve just questions of their stories.

                    Gnite.

                    1. Oky1. oh, of course.. I agree….It’s their story. . Nellie didn’t have a truly noble life for too long. John was blacklisted after turning Republican. He went bankrupt.They had to sell off property and memorobilia that defined them. Their oldest daughter committed suicide. And John left Nellie with hardly any money. But she kept her head high. I admired her.

                    2. Oky1….I’m sorry, I read that as noble “life” not noble “lie”. The only problem with not belueving Nellie when she said there were 3 shots is that she had written that down just hours after it had happened.
                      She was a feisty Texas woman, who knew guns…..and whose father had made leather holsters, etc for cowboys.for years.
                      But again, I understand your concern.

                  2. PC Schulte,…
                    Oswald was visited by the President, I think, from the Dallas Bar Assn. the day after the Assassination.
                    He declined the offer to provide representation, and repeatedly tried to contact John Abt ( I think that was his name), who was counsel for the American Communist Party.
                    Abt was at a remote cabin and could not be reached.
                    Oswald was interviewed by the Dallas PD…I think the FBI observed part of the interrogation.
                    The interviews were not tape recorded…that may have been common 55 years ago….but there are summaries of Oswald’s statements.
                    It sounds like his brother Robert accurately described Lee Harvey as “someone who liked to toy with people…Lee was toying with them the entire time”.
                    I don”t remember the number or length of Oswald’s interrogation sessions, but he was questioned.

                    1. Tom Nash – remember killing the President was a state crime in those days, the FBI was hands-off. I don’t recall the offer by the head of the bar or his asking for a specific attorney. If he did, that should have stopped the interrogation.

      2. Where it came from? I told you, It came from Carlos Hathcock. If you know who he is, then you know that if it was impossible for him, it was impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald, and damn sure for anybody that “the CBS team” had either

        http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2630

        Its like saying, well, Lance Armstrong all jacked up on roids couldn’t have rode that fast; and Lee Harvey Oswald was no Lance Armstrong of shooting.

        There are various others who have replicated it and failed such as Minnesota governer and former SEAL Jesse Ventura who did it for his tv show. He got two shots off fast without even aiming but could not even manage the third in the necessary time frame. WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO AIM, he could not even work the bolt action fast enough to make three shots.

        Essentially it’s impossible that the story is true. From day one it was a dubious account. But, people keep on believing it more than ever.

        1. There is no accounting for how someone with general knowledge of riflery like Oswald would have even picked a piece of crap Mannlicher Carcano which had a bad reputation. He could have gone to the same gun stores or (at that time mail order catalogs) and got an equally fast surplus bolt action with a better reputation for wounding, the Lee Enfield. To say nothing of the widely available strong cheap rifle of choice for generations of hunters the Mauser. Or say a Springfield in which me might actually have been trained with in the Marines. For a gun nut, it’s a bizarre and unlikely choice.

          but none of it makes sense. Why for example would he not take the easier shot, when the motorcade was approaching, and then have time for these shots once it turned the corner?

          The story is really bogus. Much of the writing about the whole shebang, both yesterday and today, is excessively complicated and focuses on spurious things at the expense of the obvious. Such as the pristine size shape and condition of the magic bullet above alluded to, which supposedly penetrated two people and yet suffered almost no visible deformation at all. Please!

          1. He bought the rifle using an alias. He was photographed with the rifle by his wife. Law enforcement officers paid a visit to Ruth Paine’s home and Marina tells them, yes, he keeps his rifle in the garage here. Only it wasn’t there. Because he’d taken it to the Texas School Book Depository where it was found by law enforcement. He shared a ride with a co-worker who attested that he was carrying a package of ‘curtain rods’ on the way to work.

            This isn’t that difficult. You need to quit reading witless meme generators.

          2. but none of it makes sense. Why for example would he not take the easier shot, when the motorcade was approaching, and then have time for these shots once it turned the corner?

            Did it occur to you that (1) you’ve misunderstood the options he actually had or that (2) you’re lacking a crucial piece of granular data or (3) this is a stupid question? He shot the president. It bloody doesn’t matter that he didn’t shoot the president from some other angle.

          3. Mr K, I appreciate your links and assessments, but in my extensive experience, it’s pointless to argue or discuss such matters as the JFK murder case with individuals of WSF’s mindset. They are not persuaded by facts or evidence and are only capable of, at best, regurgitating the officially manufactured story that has been spoon-fed to them. Fortunately, such individuals are in the minority and most people rely on facts and evidence when it comes to the JFK case, which is why the official story is not believed by the majority of people. And that’s in spite of the fact that the mainstream media has conducted a disinformation campaign for 55 years, complying with CIA Document 1035-960, and refuses to this day to properly refer to Lee Oswald as the “alleged assassin” whenever trying to connect Oswald to the shooting of JFK. See, http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html.

          4. Mr.Kurtz,…
            When Oswald was able to hold onto a job, he mostly worked for minimum wage.
            And he had a wife and two kids.
            Money was probably a factor in his decision to purchase the Mannlicher-Carbano.
            He ordered it over 6 months before he shot JFK …..it’s doubtful that he knew at that point that he’d have an opportunity to take a shot at JFK.
            The motorcade route was published only days before it was to pass the TBD where he worked.
            Years ago, I’d sometime go out with a group of friends target shooting.
            One friend owned a Mannlicher-Carbano, same model as Oswald’s.
            He knew more about rifles than the rest of us combined, and said that he found the rifle to be reliable and accurate.
            In his view, the MC was underrated, and hittting an in-line, slow moving target at up to 90 yards was not a remarkably difficult shot if the shooter was familiar with the MC.
            There was a huge inventory of WWII surplus firearms sold off from c. 1945-1965.
            Not all used firearms are in the same condition due to a lot of variables.
            If there were, say 50 MC rifles in a suplus store, some would be in better shape than others.
            So a blanket statement that the particular rifle is good/ accurate can depend on the luck of the draw, especially if ordered throught the mail.
            There is no shortage of claims about the pros/ cons of that particular rifle.
            It’s not practical to exactly recreate the conditions of Nov. 22, 1963.
            If someone like Oliver Stone were certain enough, and committed to the project, he could probably buy a similar Lincoln limo, sit where JFK sat, have an ex-Marine with a Marksman/ Sharpshooter rating at the 6th floor of the TBD with the rifle Oswald used, then calmly and confidently be driven at a slow, leisurely pace as the Oswald stand-in takes 3 shots at him.
            The recreations that have been done attempt to mimic the conditions and relative positions of Oswald and the limo, but to REALLY have similar/ identical conditions, I think Stone should step up to the plate.
            Prove once and for all that these were impossible shots to make.😉😂

      3. Peter Hill – If I remember correctly there is an old episode of Mythbusters where they got three levels of shooters and from that distance and height and moving target, even the woman who have never fired a rifle before hit the target.

        The shot is very doable, it is getting off three shots, then getting down stairs, etc. The rest of the story is okey.

        1. Then there’s the issue of the leafs on the tree. The Oak tree that blocked Oswald. chance of shooting those shots!

          Look at the pictures of the Day!

          I liked having visited the site.

          Sorry Paul,

          I doubt I find my way back here to this place in the thread even if you did reply. I’ll catch down the road if you do respond.

          1. PC Schulte,…
            The link shows a video of a shooter getting off 6 rounds in 5.1 seconds with a Mannlicher Carcano bolt action.
            I don’t know if he was hitting anything with that speedy shooting, but it does show just how fast a bolt action can potentially be operated.
            Assuming that Oswald had already chambered the first round, he would have only had to chamber two more rounds with the bolt.

            1. Tom Nash – it is the time lost in re-sighting the target, not just the re-chambering. You have the recoil, then re-chamber, then re-sight, then fire.

              Now some fascinating statistics have come out of the wars starting with the War of Northern Aggression. Some have to do with the accuracy of troops in general per amount of ammo expended in any one battle or the war in general. Given all the givens, he would have been lucky for one bullet to hit, much less three.

    2. QUESTION-
      Can you describe his neck wound?
      DR. KEMP CLARK-
      I was busy with his head wound. I would like to ask the people took care of that part to describe that to you.
      QUESTION-
      What was the question?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line.
      QUESTION-
      What was that?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      A bullet hole almost in the mid line.
      QUESTION-
      Would you demonstrate?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      In the lower portion of the neck, in front.
      QUESTION-
      Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      Approximately here (indicating).
      QUESTION-
      Below the Adam’s apple?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      Below the Adam’s apple.
      QUESTION-
      Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      That would be on conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say.
      QUESTION-
      Where was the entrance wound?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
      QUESTION-
      Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
      DR. MALCOM PERRY-
      It appeared to be coming at him.

      1. I have previously gone over this aspect of the JFK assassination with George, in some detail.
        I’m not going to waste a lot of time trying to convince him of anything, or risk confusing him with the facts.
        He accurately quotes what two ER MDs said in a hectic news conference held shortly after JFK was pronounced dead.
        There were about 70 questions thrown at the MDs in about 30 minutes.
        They gave their impressions of JFK’s wounds based on their brief, incomplete observation of those wounds in a frantic, hopeless c.20-25 minute quest to restore JFK’s heartbeat and breathing.
        JFK was on his back the entire time, and whatever view they 6-8 MDs had of the anterior wounds was brief and limited.
        The Parkland doctors were allowed access to autopsy photos and records years later; with one exception, theu all agreed with the conclusions of the autopsy.
        Those who latch on to that one news conference and ignore everything else are pulling the same kind of half-truth, intellectually dishonest, chicken**** game that surfaces again and again with a number of JFK conspiracy “experts”.
        They grab hold of one factoid and ignore and dismiss all other evidence that does not neatly fit into what they need to believe.
        There is a difference between the results of a four hour autopsy and the tentative, brief view the ER dics had at Parkland.
        This will probably lead into another set of theories about how the wounds were altered between Dallas and the Bethesda autopsy, the false accusation that the 3 autopsy MDs had no experience with gunshot wounds, etc.
        It never, ever ends. But after decades of encountering and discussing and debating some of the crap these people come up with, it always seems to be the same s*** over and over again.
        Logic and evidence don’t carry much weight in these discussions, so I don’t often get involved in them.
        There are other ways to waste time.

  5. From November 1, 2017

    MANAFORT’S TRAVELS AND PASSPORTS NOTED

    IN ARTICLE PERTAINING TO BAIL HEARING

    ECUADOR CITED AS COUNTRY MANAFORT VISITED

    Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is a globe-trotting millionaire with a nebulous net worth who holds three U.S. passports and has traveled under an alias to China, Ecuador, and Mexico this year, all of which makes him a “serious” flight risk, prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

    Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are not asking that Manafort and his partner Rick Gates be locked up as they await trial though. Instead, they want “substantial” bail conditions imposed. That call appeared to be answered on Monday when Manafort’s bail was set at $10 million and Gates’s at $5 million. The two men will be back in court Thursday to challenge that.

    “The seriousness of the charges, and penalties that the defendants face, along with their extensive international connections and financial resources, establish that they pose a serious risk of flight,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.

    While it was clear to prosecutors that Manafort has a lot of money to throw around if he decided to skip town, they noted the difficulty of pinning down just how much the 68-year-old has in the bank. In the span of six months in 2016, Manafort’s asset claims fluctuated wildly, starting at $42 million in March of 2016 and shooting up $136 million in May. By August, he had either $28 million or $63 million, depending on which financial application of his you believe.

    Proscutors also pointed to Manafort’s global travels as a reason to worry about his potential flight. In the past year alone he has traveled to Dubai, Cancun, Panama City, Havana, Shanghai, Madrid, Tokyo, and Grand Cayman Island, the filing said. They were unaware of any recent international travel by Gates. Still, the filing says, “Both have had substantial overseas ties, including assets held abroad, significant foreign work connections, and significant travel abroad. Those aspects of the defendants’ history and characteristics evidence a risk of flight.”

    The filing noted a couple other oddities related to Manafort’s globe-trotting. In March of 2017, Manafort set up a cell phone and email address with an alias and then traveled with the phone to Mexico, China, and Ecuador in the subsequent months. Then there’s the issue of his small collection of three U.S. passports, which is apparently fewer than he’d like to have. In the past decade he’s submitted applications for ten different passports, the filing said.

    Now, Manafort has zero passports, after he was forced to hand them over to the courts on Monday. Not that it matters much. Both he and Gates are currently on house arrest as they await their next court appearance.

    From: “Manafort’s 3 U.S. Passports And Travel Alias Make Him A Serious Flight Risk”

    NEW YORK MAGAZINE, 11/1/17

    1. From November 20, 2017

      FOX NEWS NOTES MANAFORT’S TRIP TO ECUADOR

      QUITO, Ecuador – Ecuadorean President Lenin Moreno says he met with President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman this year together with a group of Chinese businessmen interested in acquiring a stake in the nation’s power company.

      Moreno says in a statement Monday that the proposal from the delegation that included Paul Manafort to privatize the state-owned company was rejected because it would have violated Ecuador’s constitution.

      Former President Rafael Correa called on his successor to explain the May meeting with Manafort in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press.

      Moreno notes Manafort at the time was not under indictment.

      According to U.S. court filings, Manafort traveled to China, Mexico and Ecuador over a few weeks starting in May using one of three U.S. passports and carrying a phone registered under a false name.

      Entire Article from: “Ecuador President: Manafort Pitched Deal For Chinese Investors”

      FOX NEWS, 11/20/17

      1. From these the 2 stories above, we can gather that Manafort had ‘3’ U.S. Passports and was accustomed to traveling under an alias. Both stories note Ecuador as a country Manafort visited. The Fox News article is curious for its brief, matter of fact presentation. For some reason Fox felt compelled to address this story but made no effort to really explore it. Yet Fox notes that the former Ecuadorian president “called on his successor to explain the May meeting with Manafort”. May, in fact, was about the time that Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel.

    2. Peter Hill – I am going to bet a whole dollar that Manafort has another passport and a go bag somewhere. 🙂

  6. it’s a crap story. trust me it would have already been well known and used and publicized in the US if it were true

    for me this really discredits a lot of the UFO stories the guardian runs. (sniff, sniff, wipes a tear)

  7. “Let’s be clear: Mueller’s FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.”

    “Obviously, Trump’s administration is dangerous – it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can’t fight the right-hand of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They’re the same monster.”

    https://off-guardian.org/2018/11/24/the-rehabilitation-of-robert-mueller/

    by Kitt Knightly

    1. very very good!

      “….The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State – Pro-war, pro-globalisation, pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of “progressive values”. They prove this with their own actions – opposing Trump’s moves toward peace with North Korea and finding common ground with Russia.

      In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been notably quiet – even in favour of – three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.

      They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse to listen. So totally brain-washed by the “Orange Man Bad” hysteria, that they will side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same hashtags.

      This process has contrived to turn hard-line, inveterate warmongers into a pantheon of “liberal” heroes. John “bomb bomb Iran” McCain was mourned across the media as if he were a champion of civil rights, while Bill Kristol and his ilk are suddenly regular guests on notionally “liberal” channels.

      …and Robert Mueller receives a glowing write-up in the Guardian, being praised as “America’s straightest arrow”.

      The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a soldier “forged in combat”, regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller’s marine regiment – “The Magnificent Bastards”.

      Vietnam is reduced to a movie set – nothing but a backdrop for Mueller’s courage under fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while “The Magnificent Bastards” strode around the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded……

      What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having ourselves. He’s a “micromanager” and he’s “too tough”.

      Yes, and I’m sure he works himself too hard and doesn’t suffer fools gladly and always speaks his mind aswell.

      Read the column if you want, but I’d suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left office.

      Far more telling than what it does say…is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller’s role as head of the FBI during the launch of the “war on terror”, but doesn’t go into any of the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.

      Let’s be clear: Mueller’s FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.

      Given that, it’s rather unsurprising that the article doesn’t mention the word “Iraq” once. A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller’s testimony in front of congress played a key role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction”:

      It doesn’t matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn’t matter how tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn’t matter if he looks like Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar – a man culpable in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep State.

      A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.

      Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?

      Only in “the Resistance”….”

      THANKS THAT WAS AWESOME ESSAY

  8. This article was written to cause maximum damage to Assange as his lawyers went to court to unseal the charges against him. Assange is going to court for libel and I think he will win. This article has already been revised three times: https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1706143/diff/0/1

    However, I did see the authors of the article peeing on one of the beds at Trump tower while talking to Hillary Clinton. They were not logged in and there is no camera footage of this event but Saudi intelligence assured me it was true and showed me a document they had. I read it and immediately destroyed the article in a vat of acid.

  9. This has next to nothing to do with anything. The Guardian is a tabloid rag that is always being sued for something or other. If it cannot be proven one way or the other, and it can’t-the words of the two characters in question are meaningless-then it gets filed with the Trump/porn issues etc. It cannot be proven that it did not happen but it can be proven that it did.

    1. Excerpted from document linked above:

      4. In truth and in fact, and as CORSI well knew, after Person 1 asked CORSI to get in touch with Organization 1, CORSI did not decline the request as he stated in the interview. Instead,
      CORSI contacted an individual who resided in London, England (“overseas individual”) to pass on Person 1’s request to learn about materials in Organization 1’s possession that could be relevant to the presidential campaign. Corsi thereafter told Person 1 that Organization 1 possessed information that would be damaging to then-candidate Hillary Clinton and that Organization 1
      planned to release damaging information in October 2016.

      a. On or about July 25, 2016, Person 1 sent an email to CORSI with the subject line, “Get to [the founder of Organization 1].” The body of the message read: “Get to [the founder of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . .they deal with Foundation, allegedly.” On or about the same day, CORSI forwarded Person 1’s email to the overseas individual.

      b. On or about July 31, 2016, Person 1 emailed CORSI with the subject line, “Call me MON.” The body of the email read in part that the overseas individual “should see [the founder of Organization 1].”

      c. On or about August 2, 2016, CORSI responded to Person 1 by email. CORSI wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in mid-August. CORSI stated: “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.… Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]. That appears to be the game hackers . . . [end of sentence lost]

      1. For those of you still doing the necessary head-scratching at home, if Dr. Jerome Corsi knew well enough to use an intermediary described as “overseas individual” to contact and communicate with Julian Assange, then why wouldn’t Paul Manafort also have known well enough to have used, say, Nigel Farage, for instance, to contact and communicate with Julian Assange???

      2. About that lost sentence fragment:

        “That appears to be the game hackers . . . . . . are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke — neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

        [end excerpt]

        BTW, right on cue, Trump on the campaign trail echoed Corsi’s suggestion that HRC had suffered a stroke.

      3. i observe it’s totally lawful for people to talk and meet with Roger Stone or for that matter Julian Assange……so you want to put people in prison for meeting with assange or talking to him

        ok just making a note of that. for future reference.

        it’s all just like Pentagon papers never happened
        the whole thing is a big SO WHAT

    2. I read that, and it is laughable. It sounds like a teenage girl whining that “Yes, Betty Lou did too look at Jimmy! And she is lying if she says she did not! She is such a b*tch!!!”

      I wonder how many millions we are paying for this kind of crap. And, FWIW, I have no respect at all for Jerome Corsi, and think he was a lying slime ball way before this.

      But this is not a crime. This is just silliness.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Ordinarily, Corsi would have a First Amendment defense for his actions. Because ordinary journalists don’t solicit illegal foreign campaign contributions on behalf on candidates for public office then conceal them by deceptive or dishonest means from The Federal Election Commission thereby conspiring to defraud the United States. Uh-oh! Spaghetti-Os!

        1. I only responded to you, to let you know someone read it. I do not usually interact with you because I think you are a shill, and therefore talking with you is useless, like talking publicly with Joseph Goebbels, or Peter Shill. You will never get an answer that doesn’t follow the Party Line. You will never get an honest assessment of anything, even when figuratively speaking, the Russian tanks are entering Berlin. Nope, you will still blather on that the Reich is on the verge of Total Victory, or however that sort of deception would manifest in your comments.

          Either that, or you are just an idiot like Enigma, or IsaacBaconSandwich.

          Whichever case, conversations with you are a waste of time.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        2. you don’t need a stinking badge from CNN to be a journalist
          there is no government nor big business “licensing” of who is a journalist….that is integral part itself of the essence of 1st amendment law

          if you want a starting point brush up on this here

          Assange and Corsi are easily both journalists even if you dont like them.

          https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/defining-journalist-entitled-statutory-an

      2. I have some experience in interpreting “Dianese”.
        I’ll briefly sumnarize the translation.
        A. It is not known what Manafort told investigators during his “cooperative” phase
        B. The answers provided by Trump ( and /or his lawyers…it is Trump’s statement regardless) are not known.
        C. The Special Counsel team will shake and mix and bake these two unknown factors together, and that unknown recipe will produce evidence of perjury by Trump.
        D. If this doesn’t pan out to meet Diane’s expectations and predictions, I’ll try to interpret the ingredients and instructions for her next set of recipes.

        1. Like I said above, I don’t usually waste my time on her/it. Trying to carry on a conversations with a shill is just lost energy. Nothing you say will ever penetrate. Might as well talk to some freak in orange robes hopping around chanting about Harry Krishna, whoever he was. There will be sound waves in response to your sound waves. But not much of value in those emanating from them.

          Same with Late4, Peter Shill, and several others here. They are just idiots echoing what they have heard somewhere, or out and out lying shills. Whichever, they are not worth the time.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Turgidson: Is that the Russian Ambassador you’re talking about?

            Muffley: Yes, it is, General.

            Turgidson: Ahh, am I to understand the Russian Ambassador is to be admitted entrance to the War Room?

            Muffley: That is correct. He is here on my orders.

            Turgidson: I… I don’t know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be? I mean… begins closing his notebooks he’ll see everything. He’ll see the big board!

            Muffley: That is precisely the idea, General. That is precisely the idea. Stains, get Premier Kissov on the Hotline.

            1. listen to the Russian ambassador– isn’t it prescient what he said, when explaining why they built the doomsday machine…. the US was outspending them

          2. You are correct about the whole bunch, Squeeky. I just scroll past Late, Peter Shill, IssacBacon, enigma, etc. If I want to know their opinions I’ll watch CNN.

            1. plenty of closed minds on both sides of the aisle. apparently yours is one of them. and the girl reporter’s too. enjoy your bubble. until it pops.

              1. “plenty of closed minds”

                Sanctimony coming from one of the most closed minds. I bet that made anonymous feel self-rightous and intelligent. That is an improvement over being empty headed.

              2. No, not wasting time on closed-minded partisan shills is exactly the opposite of being close minded. It would not be closed-minded to refuse to talk with Joseph Goebbels if one realizes that Old Joe is just going to lie and dissemble.

                Late4 and Peter Shill are just little versions of Joseph.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky – both enigma and issac have blind spots they cannot get past. You can take a student to knowledge, but you can’t make him think. Neither is stupid. We might say they are not as enlightened as they are. They would say the same. That does not make them stupid, just guilty of wrong think. 😉

                1. You are probably right. I am pretty sure Enigma is capable of learning. His problem is that he doesn’t live in 2018. His mind works fine for whatever time period he lives in, probably the 1940s or 1950s.

                  Isaac is more of a strident partisan. But, he has been that way sooo long that he is now probably incapable of changing his mind. Like they say, you can’t teach an Old Canadian new tricks.

                  Playing a musical instrument would probably help both of them. I am learning some Lana Del Ray songs on guitar. And, I just ordered an Astrud Gilberto CD. Which, I think doing keeps my mind open. Meanwhile,

                  All I want to do is get high on the beach, get high on the beach, get high!

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

    1. L4D,…
      It seems odd that the Special Counsel would accept a “cooperative” plea bargain attempt by Manafort without the condition that he and his lawyers drop the Joint Defense Agreement.
      I incorrectly assumed that Mueller would have demanded withdrawal from the JDA prior to accepting Manafort’s “cooperation” agreement.

      1. I told you yesterday that Mueller “probably” used Manafort to trap Trump and Trump’s lawyers into committing perjury. Think about it. It’s not just Trump who probably committed perjury. It’s every last lawyer connected to Trump’s JDA who got information from Manafort’s lawyer and who signed off on Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions who are probably now on the hook for perjury, too. Or not. But if you think that Mueller can’t prove Manafort’s lies, then you’re really not paying attention. Remember the FISA warrants.

        1. I’m not going to rehash yesterday’s discussion on possible evidence of perjury by Trump…..Mueller either A. Has that, or B. Does not have that.
          If he has that evidence, he’s done a good job of hiding it.
          If there is a discrepancy between the sworn statements of Manafort, Trump, and others, that discrepancy, in and of itself, does not prove who committed perjury.
          The FISA warrants and the gaps in surveillance under the FISA warrants has nothing to do with the point I originally raised; i.e., why was Manafort allowed to maintain the JDA after ostensibly agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution.
          The central issue, and the central objective for Mueller, is not to prove that Manafort lied; it is to get something, like evidence if perjury, against Trump.
          Without knowing what Manafort told Mueller, or what answers were submitted by Trump, it is only wild speculation that somehow the Joint Defense Agreement will hinder Trump’s defense, or make him more vulnerable to accusations of perjury.
          I won’t pursue the issue of the continuing the JDA by Manafort after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller….if you don’t want to respond to that, it’s not a big problem.
          I think you’re the one that asked how Trump would have known that the inner workings of the Special Counsel investigation were “a total mess”, unless Trump got that info from either Manafort or Corsi.
          Did that mean that you think Manafort or Corsi accurately described the “inner workings as a total mess”, or do you think the inner workings are merely a “partial mess”?.

        2. Correction: Substitute subornation of perjury for the lawyers in Trump’s JDA. But keep the perjury for Trump and making false statements for Manafort.

          BTW, if Trump pardons Manafort, now, Trump pardons the man whose lawyer told Trump’s lawyers that it would be okay for Trump to lie to Mueller in Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions–which Trump boasted he had answered easily and that it hadn’t taken very long. Can you say obstruction? Do you know what Omerta means? Ha-Ha!

          1. wow you are such a master strategist too bad Miller doesnt have you on his team and you’re casting your fugazi pearls before us swine here

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above (Notice the gap in FISA surveillance on Manafort during the 2016 campaign.)

        We know that the FBI had one FISA surveillance order on Manafort on or about 2014. This was in relation to his consulting work on behalf of the pro-Russia ruling party in Ukraine at the time. We also know that the surveillance ceased at some point before Manafort joined President Trump’s campaign in 2016. It then recommenced at some point after that, based on his connections with Russian intelligence and evidence suggesting that he was encouraging them to interfere in the presidential election. That surveillance continued into at least early 2017.

        1. I’m not sure what that has to do with Manafort maintaining the Joint Defense Agreement as he is “cooperating” with Mueller.

          1. Mueller will prove each and every last one of Manafort’s crimes and lies in Mueller’s detailed sentencing submisson on Manafort. Most likely there will be one sentencing memo for public consumption and another sentencing memo with all of the classified evidence against Manafort. Guess what? Whitaker can’t do a damned thing about the classified information, either. That, too, goes straight to the Democratic Congress in early January of 2019.

            1. You neglected to tell us what will be in the “sentencing memo with all of the classified evidence” that goes to Congress “in early January”.
              I thought that the Democrats took control of the House on Jan. 20, but if Mueller wants to send it in earlier, that’s his call.

              1. From the Wikipedia article on the 116th Congress:

                The One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress is the next meeting of the legislative branch of the Federal government of the United States, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C., from January 3, 2019, to January 3, 2021, during the third and fourth years of Donald Trump’s current term as president.

                In the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic Party won the majority in the House of Representatives and will have a preponderance of voting influence in selecting the next Speaker. In the Senate, the Republican Party increased its majority, giving the U.S. a split congress.

                Repeated for emphasis: January 3rd, 2019.

              2. About half of the conments I’ve attempted to post this morning have actually posted.
                I did check before reading your comment, and the new Congress does convene on Jan. 3.
                Do you know what time of day Mueller will send the “classified sentencing” info to the new Congress?

                1. However . . . The exact time of day that Mueller’s sentencing memo will be delivered to Congress is also currently “classified.”

  10. Paul Manafort strongly denies it so that’s enough for me. This, if true or false won’t screw with Mueller’s case which in no part relies on such meetings. Imagine if it were true, however? Combined with the Corsi/Stone emails, overcoming those conspiracy charges would seem to be getting harder? Tell Manafort to sue away! A little discovery is good for the soul.

    1. Enigma,…
      If Harding’s claims are true, it would strengthen the case for a link between the Trump campaign and Assange/ Wikileaks.
      At this point, I have pretty much equal trust😒in Manafort, Assange, and Harding.

      1. Tom Nash – Truth doesn’t matter much these days. From the top down people can spout any implausible lie and rely on certain segments of the media to repeat it and a portion of the population to receive it.

        It appears that the lies of Manafort, Corsi, and Stone have been pretty well documented by Mueller. Can’t wait till we get to the rest of the gang.

        1. Mueller promised a detailed sentencing submission on Manafort setting forth all of Manafort’s crimes and lies. Whitaker cannot do a damned thing suppress Mueller’s sentencing submission on Manafort. To the degree and extent that Manafort is the central figure in Mueller’s case-in-chief, then Mueller’s sentencing submission on Manafort might as well be just as good as Mueller’s final report to poor, helpless Matty Whitaker.

            1. They can get more Supreme Court reindeer from Santa Pence just as readily as from Santa Trump. But can Santa Pence get elected in 2020? Probably not. Maybe Kasich will primary Trump, instead.

    2. I’d sue. He will have a good excuse to spend a lot of time in the prison library and to make trips for hearings and depos, for the duration. Suing is a smart move for him in his special circumstances.

      the E & O insurer for paper would probably make a decent and fast settlement offer just to get rid of it and he would probably take it fast too

      1. Rumor has it that London, or pretty much anywhere else in the UK, is a fine place to go if you’re looking to be assassinated by Russian state-mafia-spies. So maybe Paulie doesn’t go there.

  11. I didn’t see any evidence presented by Luke Harding, or by the Guardian, that they had access to the security records of the Ecaudor embassy in London.
    In the articles that I’ve read, I’ve seen only “unidentified sources” as the basis for claims of the Manafort-Assange meetings.
    If in fact Harding/ The Guardian gained access to these records, it should be easy enough for them to provide documentation of their claims.

  12. The Guardian gained access to the Ecuadorian embassy security records. Mueller didn’t have access to them.

    This is newsworthy and is the beginning of the end for Assange and Trump.

  13. The circumstantial evidence indicates Julian Assange is a front for Russian intelligence.

    He claims to be for transparency in government but has been silent about Putin’s widespread corruption. He has done nothing to help expose Putin’s suppression of dissidents inside Russia either.

    Assange even had a show on RT, Russia’s propaganda network.

    The minute Assange leaves that embassy Britain needs to try him under espionage laws.

    Or Britain could declare war on Ecuador, enter the embassy to arrest Assange, then sign a peace treaty. Ecuador is not in a position to fight NATO.

    1. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – WE protect Ecuador and WE are NATO. Considering who is President currently, declaring war on Ecuador and invading their embassy to get Assange, would not be their wisest move. Still, England is going to sign a Brexit which isn’t an exit.

      1. The US is not in an alliance with Ecuador. We are in an alliance with the UK and all other NATO countries. We would support the UK.

        The US did not defend Argentina after the UK attacked it.

        1. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – the US took the position that the Falklands belonged to the UK not Argentina. Thus, they did not interfere. It has to do with the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary.

  14. It is a lot easier to sue for libel in England than here. I say go for it. This would really screw with Mueller’s case.

    1. “There Should Be Ample Video and Other Evidence Showing This” un;ess of course the Eqadorians have suppressed it.

      1. Ck youtube/Dan Bongino 11/27/2018

        It sounds like there’s a Log Book with a Clinton/Deep Stater visited Assange many times & also has ties to David Steel & the rest of those Clintonistas.

        And Mueller’s crew has been attempting to cover it up.

        Trump Train 2020!!! LOL

        Gnite

          1. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – I know that you did not do the counting, so who did? And can we believe them? And what was the context?

      2. C. Moulton,..
        From the descriptions of the extensive surveillance cameras, it sounds like the British would have the video evidence if Manafort did enter the Ecuador embassy in London.

Leave a Reply