Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

[Born Free]

Again: Says who? Because you haven't personally seen a tape of Manafort entering the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the FBI couldn't possibly have such evidence? Do you think the FBI updates the general public on ongoing investigations?

Are you serious, you don't think every embassy does not have security cameras? Hell in London there is a camera on every building.

I have seen no evidence that Paul Manafort ever met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. This doesn't imply that such evidence doesn't exist, just that, iu f it does, it is not public.

You have no evidence because there is none. You don't think for a second that if Manafort entered the embassy it would not be made public? Every liberal would be bribing to get their hand of that video.

An unnamed source claims said evidence does exist

Of course there is always an unnamed source to make you feel good they have the goods.

and that this is the lie Mueller was referring to in order to justify revoking his plea deal. It is one possibility among many.

Now you claim Mueller is making public what he has on Manafort and not have. With this information I would say Mueller made a fool of himself.

 

[lwf]

I didn’t say his passport didn’t reflect it. But he has made a strong denial and his passports will have the dates he was or was not in London. If you consider the sources of the Daily Caller the chances are thread thin that it is true. It’s a hoax for the gullible. It’s going nowhere. It’s funny to see the Hillary lover never Trump crowd getting worked up though. :lol:

I think the story was from The Guardian. Either way, we don't know the source. And do you think a strong denial means someone is less likely to be guilty? What about Hillary's strong denials?

 

[lwf]

Are you serious, you don't think every embassy does not have security cameras? Hell in London there is a camera on every building.

You have no evidence because there is none. You don't think for a second that if Manafort entered the embassy it would not be made public? Every liberal would be bribing to get their hand of that video.

True. If such a tape existed, maybe the Ecuadorian President should have instantly made it public. Then again, maybe he would have concealed it? I can think of any number of reasons for a foreign country to hide politically sensitive information.

 

[Born Free]

True. If such a tape existed, maybe the Ecuadorian President should have instantly made it public. Then again, maybe he would have concealed it? I can think of any number of reasons for a foreign country to hide politically sensitive information.

Sensitive information is the first thing leaked.

 

[SLC]

I think the story was from The Guardian. Either way, we don't know the source. And do you think a strong denial means someone is less likely to be guilty? What about Hillary's strong denials?

The HUGE difference between this and Hillary she denied having classified emails on her servers but we have classified emails on her server as EVIDENCE. There is no EVIDENCE to refute Manafort’s denial. I have very little confidence in anonymous sources anyone can say anything if they don’t have to put their name behind it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think the story was from The Guardian.

What you have to remember that, not only is "The Guardian" NOT an American media source, it is a media source from a Socialist (read as "Commie") MONARCHY!!!

Either way, we don't know the source.

Not yet, at any rate.

Look to see a marked thaw in US/Ecuador relations (possibly accompanied by a large cash transfer from the US to Ecuador).

And do you think a strong denial means someone is less likely to be guilty?

Absolutely, and so does Mr. Trump.

I mean, not a single person who has ever been charged with a crime that they DID commit has ever entered a "NOT Guilty" plea - right?

What about Hillary's strong denials?

That's DIFFERENT!!!

 

[Hawkeye10]

It is going to be very difficult to find out what the meetings were about, in part because there is so much lying going on in America now, but most likely Manafort was looking for work.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The HUGE difference between this and Hillary she denied having classified emails on her servers but we have classified emails on her server as EVIDENCE.

Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?

There is no EVIDENCE to refute Manafort’s denial.

Considering that it appears that the only thing that you will accept as "evidence" is something that you have personally witnessed and have retained complete control over ever since it's creation, I have to agree that that is how you see it.

I have very little confidence in anonymous sources anyone can say anything if they don’t have to put their name behind it.

Strangely enough, you appear to have "very little confidence" in ANY source that doesn't say what you want to hear.

 

[SLC]

On Snap! The Washington Times has a report That Manafort’s two passports reflect that he entered Heathrow Airport since 2008 on two occasions “in 2012 and on another time where the customs stamp year is blurred. It appears to be either 2010 or 2016.” That information is in court
records.

I can hear the liberals crying now. :lamo

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is going to be very difficult to find out what the meetings were about, in part because there is so much lying going on in America now, but most likely Manafort was looking for work.

As far as some people are concerned, it will only be difficult if the Ecuadorans don't provide us with videos that were produced by Americans and which have been solely in the keeping of Americans ever since they were created (with the caveat that they had to have been created by supporters of "Team Trump" and personally witnessed by each and every person who supports Mr. Trump).

PS - The odds that the Ecuadorans do NOT know what went on in the meetings (assuming that they did take place) aren't such that you should bet your lunch money on it.

PPS - It is a MAJOR breach of diplomatic protocol for "Country A" to allow its embassy to be used in order to facilitate an interference in the internal affairs of "Country B" (by anyone other than authorized agents of "Country A" of course). That means that if someone from "Country B" asks "Country A" to allow them to use the "Country A" embassy for the purpose of dealing with "Country C", you can bet your bottom dollar that "Country A" is going to insist on having people present for the meeting, just to ensure that "Country B" and "Country C" are not abusing the embassy of "Country A".

 

[j-mac]

http://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...sy?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true



Wow. Maybe this is the bit of evidence that Manafort was lying about.

No wonder Trump is furiously tweeting today.

Fake news

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

On Snap! The Washington Times has a report That Manafort’s two passports reflect that he entered Heathrow Airport since 2008 on two occasions “in 2012 and on another time where the customs stamp year is blurred. It appears to be either 2010 or 2016.” That information is in court
records.

I can hear the liberals crying now. :lamo

Did you know that "in the case of general aviation flights arriving in the UK from outside the Common Travel Area, travellers may not be inspected by the UK Border Force on arrival (depending on the risk assessment conducted on the basis of the travellers' information submitted in advance via the General Aviation Report (GAR) form) and may be 'remotely cleared' instead. In this case, no passport stamp is received".

This means that the lack of an "entry stamp" proves what?

Remember, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - right?

 

[Hawkeye10]

As far as some people are concerned, it will only be difficult if the Ecuadorans don't provide us with videos that were produced by Americans and which have been solely in the keeping of Americans ever since they were created (with the caveat that they had to have been created by supporters of "Team Trump" and personally witnessed by each and every person who supports Mr. Trump).

PS - The odds that the Ecuadorans do NOT know what went on in the meetings (assuming that they did take place) aren't such that you should bet your lunch money on it.

PPS - It is a MAJOR breach of diplomatic protocol for "Country A" to allow its embassy to be used in order to facilitate an interference in the internal affairs of "Country B" (by anyone other than authorized agents of "Country A" of course). That means that if someone from "Country B" asks "Country A" to allow them to use the "Country A" embassy for the purpose of dealing with "Country C", you can bet your bottom dollar that "Country A" is going to insist on having people present for the meeting, just to ensure that "Country B" and "Country C" are not abusing the embassy of "Country A".

I am assuming that there are no tapes because Ecuador would want to be able to deny knowledge of his activities.....they signed up for being his sanctuary, not to being his supervisor.

 

[SLC]

Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?

Nope you would be wrong
There were emails that were classified at the time and that here were some that contained classified information that should have been known to be classified and there was a large number of retroactively classified emails. I believe one had the name of an undercover operative and could have got him killed if it fell in the wrong hands.

Considering that it appears that the only thing that you will accept as "evidence" is something that you have personally witnessed and have retained complete control over ever since it's creation, I have to agree that that is how you see it.

Equine feces

Strangely enough, you appear to have "very little confidence" in ANY source that doesn't say what you want to hear.

Strangely you seem to agree with anonymous sources that disagree with court records and government documents.

 

[Athanasius68]

There has to be some lie Mueller is referring to in order to revoke Manafort's plea deal, right?

No. Mueller is claiming perjury because he claims Manafort is withholding information which he is obligated to divulge as per the plea deal.
However, Mueller is also saying that Manafort believes that he is NOT witholding information and is fullfilling his obligation under the plea deal.

 

[hanger4]

Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?



Considering that it appears that the only thing that you will accept as "evidence" is something that you have personally witnessed and have retained complete control over ever since it's creation, I have to agree that that is how you see it.



Strangely enough, you appear to have "very little confidence" in ANY source that doesn't say what you want to hear.

*Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?*

This ^^ is not true, there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they were sent/received. A 7 email chain was classified as Top Secret SAP. 20 some odd classified as Top Secret and 60 some odd at the Secret level. All this was stated by Comey in his presser.

 

[sanman]

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.

Mueller is a leaker - just like his close buddy Comey. Does his Special Prosecutor status give him the right to leak confidential investigative information?

 

[lwf]

No. Mueller is claiming perjury because he claims Manafort is withholding information which he is obligated to divulge as per the plea deal.
However, Mueller is also saying that Manafort believes that he is NOT witholding information and is fullfilling his obligation under the plea deal.

That isn't what I read.

"The government will file a detailed sentencing submission ... that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein,"

"As the defendant has breached the plea agreement, there is no reason to delay his sentencing," -- Prosecutors' Monday court filing

 

[j-mac]

No. Mueller is claiming perjury because he claims Manafort is withholding information which he is obligated to divulge as per the plea deal.
However, Mueller is also saying that Manafort believes that he is NOT witholding information and is fullfilling his obligation under the plea deal.

IOW, Not telling him what he wants to hear.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Mueller is a leaker - just like his close buddy Comey. Does his Special Prosecutor status give him the right to leak confidential investigative information?

Mueller's above the law.

 

[lwf]

IOW, Not telling him what he wants to hear.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Doesn't he want to hear the truth?

 

[SLC]

*Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?*

This ^^ is not true, there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they were sent/received. A 7 email chain was classified as Top Secret SAP. 20 some odd classified as Top Secret and 60 some odd at the Secret level. All this was stated by Comey in his presser.

He will try to bloviate some "reason" why those classified at the time emails don't count. One can only wonder what the emails she deleted had on them.

 

[Threegoofs]

*Of course we simply have to ignore the fact that those eMails contained information that was RETROACTIVELY "classified" in order to do that, don't we?*

This ^^ is not true, there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they were sent/received. A 7 email chain was classified as Top Secret SAP. 20 some odd classified as Top Secret and 60 some odd at the Secret level. All this was stated by Comey in his presser.

You seem to know a lot about this.

You must be FURIOUS that Ivanka and Jared sent emails from a private server.

I look forward to your posts demanding a full investigation.

 

[Athanasius68]

That isn't what I read.

"The government will file a detailed sentencing submission ... that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein,"

"As the defendant has breached the plea agreement, there is no reason to delay his sentencing," -- Prosecutors' Monday court filing

Paragraph 5.

 

[SLC]

Did you know that "in the case of general aviation flights arriving in the UK from outside the Common Travel Area, travellers may not be inspected by the UK Border Force on arrival (depending on the risk assessment conducted on the basis of the travellers' information submitted in advance via the General Aviation Report (GAR) form) and may be 'remotely cleared' instead. In this case, no passport stamp is received".

This means that the lack of an "entry stamp" proves what?

Remember, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - right?

Maybe Manafort swam to England.:lamo