Five Weeks After the Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange/Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged – Just Stonewalling

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Five Weeks After the Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange/Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged – Just Stonewalling

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    • #7542
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 6,833

      Glenn Greenwald
      January 2 2019, 8:43 a.m.

      Five weeks ago, the Guardian published one of the most extraordinary and significant bombshells in the now two-plus-year-old Trump/Russia saga. “Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign,” claimed reporter and best-selling “Collusion” author Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and a very sketchy third person whose name was bizarrely scrubbed from the Guardian’s byline for its online version but appeared in the print version: Fernando Villavicencio, described by the Washington Post, discussing this mysterious discrepancy, as “an Ecuadoran journalist and activist.”

      That the Guardian story would be seen as an earth-shattering revelation – one that would bring massive amounts of traffic, attention, glory and revenue to the paper – was obvious. And that’s precisely how it was treated, as it instantly ricocheted around the media ecosystem with predictable viral speed: “The ultimate Whoa If True. It’s … [the] ballgame if true,” pronounced MSNBC’s Chris Hayes who, unlike many media figures reacting to the story, sounded some skepticism: “The sourcing on this is a bit thin, or at least obscured.”

      But Hayes’ cable news colleague Ari Melber opened his MSNBC show that night excitedly touting the Guardian’s scoop while meticulously connecting all the new inflammatory dots it uncovered, asking one guest: “how does this bombshell impact the collusion part of the probe”?

      From the start, the massive holes in the Guardian’s blockbuster were glaring. As I noted on the day the story published, analysts from across the political spectrum – including those quite hostile to Assange – expressed serious doubts about the article’s sourcing, internal logic, self-evidently dubious assertions and overall veracity, even as many media figures uncritically trumpeted it.

      In particular:

      How could it be that Paul Manafort, of all people, snuck into one of the most monitored, survilled, videoed and photographed buildings on the planet on three separate occasions without any of that ostensibly “smoking gun” visual evidence having emerged, including in the Guardian’s own story?
      Why would the Guardian publish a story of this magnitude without first requiring that its Ecuadoran intelligence sources provide them with such photographic or video evidence to publish it or at least review prior to publication?
      How could it be that Manafort’s name never appeared in any of the embassy entrance logs even though, as the Guardian itself admitted, “visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports”?
      What was the bizarre, sensationalistic reference to “Russians” that the Guardian included in its article but never bothered to explain (“separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians’”).

      Much more at the link.

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

    • #7624
      • Total Posts: 907


      Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it. - RFK

    • #7767
      • Total Posts: 3,202

      The “Trump-Russia” constellation of conspiracy theories have already done incredible damage:

      * A large number of people believe deeply in a totally unsupported version of events that, objectively, should be regarded with deep skepticism.
      * An entire political party has avoided changing in any way as a result of the Election 2016 loss. In fact, this political faction, the Democrats, now actively uses hysteria surrounding fear of a Russian bogeyman to hide from any real issue, and attempts to interfere with domestic elections using false claims of Russian “interference”.
      * The current Presidential Administration is 100% constrained only to escalation and belligerence with respect to the US-Russia relations, resulting in a new Cold War.
      * Any number of reality-based issues (climate, wealth inequality, etc.) have been drowned out by the media and political focus on the conspiracy theories.

      However, the conspiracy theories will continue to do much damage, because, after they are finally done, the investigations showing no evidence, no arrow hitting any real target, it will take a year of media catharsis and political hysteria to put the theories to rest. What will happen as well is that the media and political machine that is the Democratic Party will have learned that it can manipulate false claims of Russian involvement with US politicians to get major political wins.

      I’m very worried about not just the resurgence of “Moscow causes all problems” thinking going into the 2020s, but its eager, even virulent acceptance by the left-of-center, not the right

      • #7800
        Babel 17
        • Total Posts: 6,833

        Given the precedent of Russia!, we’d be subjected to a devastating chaos as charges of having ties to China got levied to and fro.

        And given the wealth of China we’d be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of influence reaching our political class, and our media.

        I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the idea of China hacking our democracy is just the stuff of fairy tales.


        Don't Kill the Whale
        Don't feed the trolls

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.