Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

[Moderate Right]

This is it. It's all unraveling.

LOL. Keep the fantasies going. It's what keeps you guys alive. By the way, Trump is still president and will be to at least January 2021, no matter how much garbage you want to throw at him. Now even the House Democrats are talking about not investigating Trump to death.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't understand how many times trump associates have to lie before they start to understand how ridiculous they look. Reporting from a respected source that uses an unnamed source is correct way more often than not. They are pulling the watergate act all over again. Trash the press for daring to report the truth. They will trash the FBI, the CIA, Judges, DOJ, former officials that have served with dignity, the free press etc. because they really really really think the guy who paid 25 million bucks for defrauding americans with a fake university is a real stand up guy. Insanity.

Sorry, but the "Watergate did it" excuse doesn't fly anymore. It's been used way too many times on stories that fell flat.

You are going to have to come up with something else to make the idiots believe the rumors.

 

[ipsofacto]

Funny how you guys take absolutely everything anti-Trump as total and complete fact, without any evidence whatsoever.

I didn't see anyone on this thread do that.

 

[Mycroft]

Better hope that it's just rumor.

shrug...

I don't care.

But if it doesn't turn out to be true, won't YOU feel foolish for believing a rumor? Nah...you won't.

 

[Threegoofs]

I will not impinge your post, and indeed very much appreciate your posting it.

But I personally will need to see how this plays out a bit, before I can embrace this as fully credible.

Agree

 

[Threegoofs]

If it pans out, cool. Until it does, it's a rumor.

But hey...you don't have to justify yourself to me. You want to speculate...go for it.

It’s the Breaking News section.

The story is from a very reputable newspaper in the UK.

Sorry if it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

 

[Verax]

Considering there are world powers involved with a lot at stake, the evidence of what did or did not happen at that Ecuadorian embassy is possibly being manipulated.

 

[roughdraft274]

Funny how you guys take absolutely everything anti-Trump as total and complete fact, without any evidence whatsoever.

I fully admit that it's possible that some anonymous sourced stuff is incorrect. But the amount is small. We can say with certainty that it's not all made up. Even if we strip away the top 20% (which is absurdly high) most damning reporting around the trump campaign and administration then that leaves us with enough reporting to know just how corrupt and incompetent Trump and nearly everyone around him is. People like Woodward were attacked day and night for their reporting on Nixon. Turns out they were right and that they only uncovered a fraction of the corruption. It's very likely the same scenario here. If you want a government with no checks and balances, keep attacking the free press.

 

[roughdraft274]

Sorry, but the "Watergate did it" excuse doesn't fly anymore. It's been used way too many times on stories that fell flat.

You are going to have to come up with something else to make the idiots believe the rumors.

Such as?

 

[apdst]

From a Nothing Burger- Is that not where all those charges came from?
Nope- No one on the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians- Remember that, and how many sucked down bucket loads of TKA- Trumps Kool Aid
If Trump had nothing to fear why all the attacks on Mueller. DOJ, FBI??

There just aren't enough hours in the day to change your narrative. Are there?

If Mueller had anything solid, why bother even prosecuting Manafort for crimes that have nothing to do with "Russia collusion"? Two things regarding this alleged Assange (if they even took place) 1) if they had credible knowledge of what was discussed, they would bother with leveraging Manafort to cooperate and 2) the meetings, alone, don't constitute a crime. If they did, there would be no need to leverage Manafort into cooperating.

Instead, Mueller spent the last two years going after process crimes and totally unrelated crimes, only to end up now, losing his star witness.

This is more evidence that Mueller has zero evidence of a crime.

 

[ipsofacto]

There just aren't enough hours in the day to change your narrative. Are there?

If Mueller had anything solid, why bother even prosecuting Manafort for crimes that have nothing to do with "Russia collusion"? Two things regarding this alleged Assange (if they even took place) 1) if they had credible knowledge of what was discussed, they would bother with leveraging Manafort to cooperate and 2) the meetings, alone, don't constitute a crime. If they did, there would be no need to leverage Manafort into cooperating.

Instead, Mueller spent the last two years going after process crimes and totally unrelated crimes, only to end up now, losing his star witness.

This is more evidence that Mueller has zero evidence of a crime.

Wikileaks is a substantial part of establishing the Trump Campaign's relation to Russia.

 

[markjs]

Well we'd like to think, but that's a LOT premature.

 

[trouble13]

From a Nothing Burger- Is that not where all those charges came from?
Nope- No one on the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians- Remember that, and how many sucked down bucket loads of TKA- Trumps Kool Aid
If Trump had nothing to fear why all the attacks on Mueller. DOJ, FBI??

Whether you believe the investigation is legitimate or a witchhunt, most would say trump has plenty to fear.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

It’s the Breaking News section.

The story is from a very reputable newspaper in the UK.

Sorry if it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

LOL!! Okay.

 

[apdst]

Wikileaks is a substantial part of establishing the Trump Campaign's relation to Russia.

I understand that, but Mueller's chore will be to present credible evidence of a connection. That brings us back to Mueller not getting what he wants from Manafort: Manafort was his star witness. Yesterday, Mueller destroyed any credibility Manafort may have had.

I think we're getting to the point where Mueller is going to be one of the one's trying to keep from going to the jailhouse. If he's caught manufacturing evidence, that could be very well what happens.

 

[trouble13]

Love how they claim Manafort met with Assange but all visitors to the embassy get logged and there is no log with Manafort visiting the embassy.
Since you cant prove a negative, the proof has to be that he did visit, Where is the proof?

Lol you just answered the first question that popped into my head. If there is no log or video evidence, it makes the story.....

Wait for it......
FAKE NEWS

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

It’s the Breaking News section.

The story is from a very reputable newspaper in the UK.

Sorry if it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

The Guardian's own source admits that the embassy logs don't list Manafort as entering the embassy.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ssange-in-ecuadorian-embassy?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[ipsofacto]

I understand that, but Mueller's chore will be to present credible evidence of a connection. That brings us back to Mueller not getting what he wants from Manafort: Manafort was his star witness. Yesterday, Mueller destroyed any credibility Manafort may have had.

I think we're getting to the point where Mueller is going to be one of the one's trying to keep from going to the jailhouse. If he's caught manufacturing evidence, that could be very well what happens.

Yeah...no.

 

[Verax]

There just aren't enough hours in the day to change your narrative. Are there?

If Mueller had anything solid, why bother even prosecuting Manafort for crimes that have nothing to do with "Russia collusion"? Two things regarding this alleged Assange (if they even took place) 1) if they had credible knowledge of what was discussed, they would bother with leveraging Manafort to cooperate and 2) the meetings, alone, don't constitute a crime. If they did, there would be no need to leverage Manafort into cooperating.

Instead, Mueller spent the last two years going after process crimes and totally unrelated crimes, only to end up now, losing his star witness.

This is more evidence that Mueller has zero evidence of a crime.

I understand that, but Mueller's chore will be to present credible evidence of a connection. That brings us back to Mueller not getting what he wants from Manafort: Manafort was his star witness. Yesterday, Mueller destroyed any credibility Manafort may have had.

I think we're getting to the point where Mueller is going to be one of the one's trying to keep from going to the jailhouse. If he's caught manufacturing evidence, that could be very well what happens.

I would like to thank you and others for two years of comedy gold.

This never gets old.

 

[Tangmo]

Funny how you guys take absolutely everything anti-Trump as total and complete fact, without any evidence whatsoever.

You're swimming upstream and you're not that strong at it.

 

[apdst]

I would like to thank you and others for two years of comedy gold.

So...what do you think about Mueller losing his star witness? :lamo

What's even better, is that now he has to tell a judge, under oath, that he knows Manafort is lying and produce evidence that proves it. That's going to be good stuff right there!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Or, he wasn't lying about it and that's why Mueller is pissed off.

Funny how that got leaked...today...right after the news of Mueller yanking the plea deal.

It wasn't leaked. It was the subject of a newspaper article.

Really basic stuff here.

 

[apdst]

Yeah...no.

Prove it.

 

[Moderate Right]

I fully admit that it's possible that some anonymous sourced stuff is incorrect. But the amount is small. We can say with certainty that it's not all made up. Even if we strip away the top 20% (which is absurdly high) most damning reporting around the trump campaign and administration then that leaves us with enough reporting to know just how corrupt and incompetent Trump and nearly everyone around him is. People like Woodward were attacked day and night for their reporting on Nixon. Turns out they were right and that they only uncovered a fraction of the corruption. It's very likely the same scenario here. If you want a government with no checks and balances, keep attacking the free press.

You can't take ANYTHING seriously that is attributed to anonymous sources and offers up zero proof.

 

[apdst]

It wasn't leaked. It was the subject of a newspaper article.

Really basic stuff here.

It was leaked! When an anonymous source is cited...it's a "leak"! :lamo