Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies 292


The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian.

Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over.

The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs.

This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.

There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”.

Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency.

My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike.

I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers.

Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them.

I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on December 18, 2018.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

292 thoughts on “Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies

1 2 3 4
  • bj

    As a supplement to the article Craig mentions, https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ , there’s this talk with William Binney on that subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mS-3-W0ig .

    The blurb:

    Tomi Collins
    Published on Jul 16, 2018
    MIND-BLOWING REPORT! SHARE! Go to AmericaRestored.us and Join the Fight!
    America Restored’s Executive Director Tomi Collins and Bill Binney former Tech Director of the NSA on Saturday, July 7th in Washington DC. Mr. Binney provides forensic data proving Guccifer2 Data is fraud and Russia did not hack the DNC Friday, July 13th Rod Rosenstein hands down Indictment against Russian intelligence officials using fraudulent Gucciifer2 report as a main building block in the indictment!

  • Mark B

    I often wonder how much the Russians pay Craig.

    Here he is, at it again. For the avoidance of any doubt of what Craig is really up to go and have a re-read of his posts on the Salisbury attacks zndcwirness his desperate attempts, at every turn, to try and discredit emerging evidence that the attack was carried out by Russians.

    Classic Russian propaganda tactics, and indeed Craig has an audience of ‘useful idiots.

    • Ruth

      There’s absolutely no evidence the Russians carried out the poisoning. It’s far more likely it was a UK intelligence operation to smear Russia and also to detain Skripal who in all likelihood was planning to go back to Russia using his role in the Dodgy Dossier as the bargaining chip.

    • Bayard

      I often wonder how much the UK security services pay people like you.

      Here e is, at it again. For the avoidance of any doubt of what Craig is really up to go and have a re-readI often wonder how much the Russians pay Craig.

      Here you are, at it again. For the avoidance of any doubt of what you and all the others are really up to go and have a re-read of the comments on Craig’s posts on the Salisbury attacks and witness the desperate attempts, at every turn, to try and make readers of this blog believe all the self-evident rubbish put forward as “evidence” that the attack was carried out by Russians.

      Classic spook propaganda tactics, and indeed, elsewhere, they have an audience of ‘useful idiots’, but not here.

      • Paul Greenwood

        I often wonder how much the UK security services pay people like you.

        Possibly a lower rate than it pays people like Skripal or Litvinenko. or Mark Urban or Con Coughlin or Luke Harding

    • Clive

      I think some of the comments made by Craig regarding the Skripal incident quite plausible. Even after the Panorama documentary by the BBC, I have more doubts now on how they actually got poisoned, they allege that the door handle of Skripals home was the source of contamination for the Skripals and the Police Officer, yet we see Police standing guard right outside the very same door without any protective clothing, a few miles down the road Police are wearing yellow chem suites as this substance is so dangerous. The Police officer lost everything in his home, yet the restaurant the Skripals dined at is open with the same furniture etc. So something doesn’t really add up to how they actually got poisoned. Just because someone doesn’t agree with what we get told doesn’t mean they are doing the Russians dirty work of misinformation.

      • Bayard

        “Just because someone doesn’t agree with what we get told doesn’t mean they are doing the Russians dirty work of misinformation.”

        Oh yes it does; those that are not with us are against us.

        • Clive

          What a load of rubbish Bayard!! Please explain, how officers can stand next to the door which they say was the area the highly dangerous poison was sprayed on, yet they have no protective clothing, then miles down the road police and investigators are wearing Chemical PPE? Its pretty obvious I would think that the door wasn’t the place of contamination.

          • Ray Raven

            Sarcasm Clive.
            I’m pretty sure Bayard is being sarcastic.

            Within text, sarcastic commentary should be denoted with the term “/s” after the statement, Somethuing missed by Bayard.

            I could be wrong, but I could be right.

          • Borncynical

            Bayard (Nov 27 at 21.32 and Nov 28 at 18.22)

            Indeed. I recall someone’s observation some months ago on another website that in the current western mindset “someone simply in pursuit of the truth is regarded as ‘a traitor’ “.

        • Paul Greenwood

          “Oh yes it does; those that are not with us are against us.” Bayard

          “It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco.” V I Lenin

          “O con noi o contro di noi”—You’re either with us or against us. Benito Mussolini

      • Phill

        That’s also not forgetting that the Skripals fed bread to the ducks about 30 minutes after the alleged door handle posioning, including giving the bread to 3 boys, one of whom ate the bread. No dead ducks. No dead boys. But somehow DS Bailey gets infected about 11 hours after the alleged Novichok has been put on the door handle despite the fact he was wearing protective gear. And why was he wearing protective gear when the staff at the hospital stated that they didn’t know they were dealing with something infectious until DS Bailey got sick?

    • D_Majestic

      Frankly I have long declined to believe any story emanating from government, mainstream media and paid state activists. Ever since the ‘Dodgy Dossier’, the never-found WMD, and the miraculous tale of the 45-minute rockets, my reaction varies between mirth and annoyance.

    • AlexT

      Well the Guardian is starting to backpedal (they stealth edited the article) and, quite frankly, they don’t provide _any_ evidence _nor_ source.
      If Manafort visited, a GG points out, it should be extremely easy to prove. Extraordinary claims need at the very least some backing.

    • Peter

      “… and indeed Craig has an audience of ‘useful idiots”

      @ Mark B

      Gee thanks, by all means speak for yourself.

      Craig’s writing has one of the best informed, most thoughtful commenting communities that I’m currently aware of.

    • Mighty Drunken

      If you look at all the evidence you may be surprised how weak the Russian government link actually is. The UK government were very quick to point the finger at Russia, mostly because the poison has a Russian name and the victims were Russian. Neither of which are actual evidence.
      The Russian tourists are shown to be wondering around Salisbury on the right day but as far as the evidence shows they only got within 500m of Skripals house. The same poison was apparently found in trace amounts in the bedsit they stayed in but only months afterwards. Subsequent testing found nothing.
      Considering the numerous holes in the official story and oddities like how Porton Down and the OPCW do not mention Novichok nor give a formula. At best saying a toxic compound which is like a nerve agent. I begin to doubt the whole thing.

    • Andrew Ingram

      Luke’s caught in the Gonzo mind-warp. He can’t make up his mind as to whether he’s the next Hunter S Thompson or the next Duke from Doonesbury.

    • J

      Do you have any information or evidence to share? It appears not. All you have is the usual character assassination bullshit. Grow a pair of balls.

    • Tatyana

      @Mark B
      You do not doubt that the Russians pay Mr. Murray.
      You … “often wonder how much”…
      It makes me think that, you try to figure out the amount of additional income for yourself 🙂

  • Adrian Parsons

    “That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.”

    And this extends to the tech sector. The post below got my Ars Technica account deleted pronto in September just before Breitbart leaked the Google censorship policy document “The Good Censor” on 9th October (https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK#from_embed), a leak not covered (quelle surprise) by the “quality” media.

    “Highlighting the supreme hypocrisy of the US objecting to foreign interference in their internal affairs when precisely such has been one of the central planks of the US’s 20th/21st Century attempts to maintain world control is going to have as much traction with this constituency as it does with that of, for example, the Guardian: none.

    The simple fact is that hypocrisy is one of the defining features of the liberal. As Chomsky once stated: ““Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” And as liberals are proving every day, both in the real world (Berkeley et al) and in Silicon Valley, they only like the free speech that they agree with.

    Chomsky identified several ways in which censorship functioned in the ‘media space’ of a ‘democracy’ decades ago: amongst these were outright no-platforming, a restriction on the ‘acceptable’ sources of facts/news, a restriction on the ‘acceptable’ range of opinion to be aired, the sieving of ‘experts’ to be called on to comment on current/world affairs.

    In his time, this was largely the ‘traditional media’: radio/TV/the press. Now, as social media have become more important as sources of information for the inadequately-educated, post-baby boomer generations, the techniques of censorship are being applied “in plain sight” and people are cheering!

    Trump might be everything and more that his opponents have charged him with, but already his one gift to the future, the “toothpaste that can never be put back in the tube”, is the forcing of this mass brainwashing into the open. It is no longer just Communists and others on the true Left who have contempt for the MSM and their corruption and lies: the Right have woken up to it as well. Hence the hysterical (and Freudian – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9ce-yMEfc) reaction of the MSM to the “fake news” charge, something they never felt the need to do when attacked from the Left.”

    • Deb O'Nair

      “The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.”

      Just as it’s always been, and that’s why they drive corporate TV News agendas even though they represent a very narrow political view and have tiny readerships in comparison to the other forms of mass media.

      Witness the daily ‘press preview’ conducted by BBC News24 and Sky News; By definition the printed media is ‘old news’ in today’s digital world of social media driven rolling news channels, so why should News channels be interested in old news? Well, they are not. They are interested in reinforcing narratives and because a printed word has more ‘validity’ than spoken words on TV, this is one reason for the continuous ‘News Ticker’ that scrolls along at the bottom of the screen; it’s not an informing mechanism, but a reinforcing one.

      The bizarre spectacle on TV News of talking heads commenting about newspaper articles is a mechanism for TV News to tell the public what to think about a ‘narrative’ without losing their image of impartiality. The press are like the ring in the cattle’s nose that drags the rest of the corporate media this way and that by projecting the views of the multi-billionaire and tax-exile proprietors.

  • Jack

    Lets say Luke was right, what is so dangerous if a meeting had occured according to Harding? What is Harding’s perverse moral of the story?

    • Stu

      The point of the story is to further erode the little remaining public support Assange has in the UK and USA so the political repercussions are minimal when he is sent to America and put on trial

      • bj

        That I don’t get.
        Both parties, as far as we know, could drink his blood.

        My take: the powers that be go for Trump first, then Assange.

  • Durak

    Ah… Luke Harding… along with Mark Urban… both an odd pair… no doubt joined occasionally by Bill Browder… wouldn’t trust the trio to give me the time of day.

    Luke though like Bill have tried to build careers out of claiming to be “Putin’s enemy No. 1″… laughable to a few but I suspect a gullible public believe such tripe.

    • J

      If Farage wanted to damage Assange, or anyone else for that matter, all they have to do is arrange a visit to the Ecuadorian embassy. Why should we give a toss?

      • Ian

        Sorry J, that is a desperate excuse. We should ‘give a toss’ because if you are going to lionise Assange, then it behooves you to know what he is actually up to and who he consorts with.

        • J

          There’s no logical reason any of your inferences regarding any alleged meetings mean what you imply they mean, even if they occured which is far from certain. Sorry mate.

          • Ian

            The Farage meeting was documented and admitted by Farage. We have no idea what it was about. Why was he caught skulking out of the embassy by a reporter? Maybe Assange thought he could use him, as he tried to use some of the Trump team (Stone was in contact with Wikileaks as they admitted). But he is out of his depth, and will only give succour to these unpleasant right wing tossers, as he did with the Trump team, who then discarded him.

    • Mighty Drunken

      Good question. Maybe the obvious reason is that some politicians may visit Assange in the hope of finding out dirt on their opponents?

  • writeon

    ‘The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.’ Very true and it’s been that way for decades as ‘liberal democracy’ fades away into the past. When Trump calls the media the ‘enemy of the people’… he’s right, but for the wrong reasons. Craig is seemingly in agreement.

    The real story, a story that dare not be mentioned, is that powerful forces in the US and the UK conspired to stop Trump being elected because he wasn’t ‘vetted’ successfully for a variety of reasons.

    The ruling elite cannot accept that the people are no longer listening or obeying orders like they used to and the media church is losing its grip on the public imagination in our ‘post news’ world. That the elite itself is responsible for Trump’s electoral triumph is an idea so shockiing and dangerous that it cannot be allowed to stand, because it would bring elite rule into question itself, so they invent a fiction about the Russians instead of looking for the truth, so much easier and comforting for them. And they are still fighting the last election by attempting to topple Trump by linking him to ‘Russians.’

  • writeon

    One wonders, can Harding keep his job after this latest awful smearing of Assange? So what if he met Manaford? Is that illegal or even wrong? Why is the crap produce by Harding’s chum Christopher Steele… okay and not interfering in the electoral process, but Wikileaks publication of leaked Democrat material… so wrong? And what about the content of the leaked material itself? Material that shows a deep-rooted conspiracy, and Luke loves a good conspiracy, that the Democratic establishment shafted their own base and the primaries were rigged in favour of Clinton and not democratic at all! It’s typical of the media and the ghastly Guardian, that they steer clear of any real analysis of what the e-mails tell us about the Democrats and American democracy. Really, one should be thanking the ‘Russians’ for revealing the truth about what sham the whold system really is.

  • Andrew Petherbridge

    Thanks for your excellent article. SBS news in Australia is quoting this Harding Guardian story as gospel. I was pleased to be able to link your analysis to this SBS piece of propaganda.

    • bj

      Down Under they’re apparently believers of anything that comes out of the ‘Integrity Initiative’.

      But beware of false prophets: that’s merely two eyes of the Five.

    • Andrew Mcguiness

      Maybe your post had an effect. The SBS story on Manafort-Assange now has the headline:

      Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort denies Assange 2016 meeting

      It begins with this:
      ‘US President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has staunchly denied ever meeting with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, after the Guardian newspaper published a story alleging the two met at least three times, including once in 2016.

      “This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said through a spokesman.

      “We are considering all legal options against the Guardian, who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.” ‘

      and ends with this:
      ‘WikiLeaks also denounced the story on Twitter, saying it was “willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.”

      It also reported that it has launched a legal fund to sue the newspaper for publishing a “fabricated story.” ‘

      A glimmer, at least.

  • uncle tungsten

    Mueller has form. Lockerbie, twin towers now russiagate,. The Yankees are being led by UK govt manipulation and the fanatical narcissism of Shillary Pedestal and Mueller himself.

  • ProfessorPlum

    ‘The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.’ this isnt a new thing.

    In America going back to the 60’s there was operation Mockingbird. Now rechristened the msm mainstream mockingbird media, media barons were force to admit that had intelligence operatives running and ‘creating’ new stories in the media.

    This was 60 years ago…

    • Paul Greenwood

      Mockingbird was 1950s onwards. It is how the Grahams came to own WaPo using CIA funds. Then again we do wonder how Cap’n Bob came to own The Mirror…….some say Mossad money

  • bemused

    Just speculation on my behalf, but I’ve thought for a long time about the inevitability of the Mueller probe ‘back firing’, in the sense that it digs so deep that it uncovers hard evidence of HRC & Co lying about the ‘hack’ and, in fact, colluding themselves (via the dossier, Steele, Miller…..et al).

    History is full of such wonderful ironies; and this would put the investigators in a delicious bind!

    I am, in fact, astonished as to why Trump (or his cronies at Fox) hasn’t had the native intellect to try and work with Assange; doesn’t Wikileaks’ assertions help Trumps case?

    • Michael Droy

      I think Trump is happy with Wikileaks, but wouldn’t dare contact them direct.

      Manafort worked for Yanukovych – who was not liked in Moscow – indeed until his problems came from wanting to accept the EU trade deal (which would have meant full through trade between EU and Russia, and therefore force Russia to block trade with Ukraine = disaster).

      The Mueller goal is to block all other investigations. So for example Comey refuses to testify in private, because he desperately needs the excuse to avoid questions “that might compromise the Mueller inquiry”. No Mueller inquiry, everyone falls.

      • Baalbek

        “I think Trump is happy with Wikileaks, but wouldn’t dare contact them direct”

        You Trump water carriers are the 2018 equivalents of Obama’s hopey changee dupes.

  • exiled off mainstreet

    The former newspapers of record have become mere adjuncts to a world fascist disinformation campaign. The whole edifice deserves to be destroyed. Hopefully that destruction will not entail world nuclear holocaust.

  • Alan

    It was sickening to hear David Mitchell as guest presenter of “Have I Got News For You” describe Julian as “Wikileaks Weirdo”. Just another fool following a BBC script writer’s subliminal message to the British people.

    • Robyn

      I heard another avenue for implanting the ‘official’ story yesterday. In the latest ‘History Extra’ podcast, Paddy Ashdown is interviewed about his new book (on German and Nazi opposition to Hitler). Comparing Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, he threw in this line, ‘The reach of the GRU, the famous poisoners of Skripal’.

    • Sharp Ears

      Bibicee trusties/luvvies – David Mitchell is married to Victoria Coren. Her brother is Giles Coren. He is somehow related by marriage to the Pointless presenter, Alexander Armstrong.

      Like the Dimblebores they are embedded in the state broadcaster’s output and have the run of it. The production companies also have these connections. £millions of licence fee payers’ funding are going into their pockets.

    • Sharp Ears

      BBC trusties/luvvies – David Mitchell is married to Victoria Coren. Her brother is Giles Coren. He is somehow related by marriage to the Pointless presenter, Alexander Armstrong.

      Like the Dimblebores they are embedded in the state broadcaster’s output and have the run of it. The production companies also have these connections. £millions of licence fee payers’ funding are going into their pockets.

      • Borncynical

        Yep, Giles Coren is married to Armstrong’s sister. And, of course, Giles and Victoria Coren are the offspring of the late BBC stalwart Alan Coren. Nepotism?? How dare we suggest it!

  • Tony M

    Look this nonsense over date and time stamps somehow confirming an insider leak rather than a hack is sheer unadulterated moonshine. This (time stamps) seems to be the sole evidence for this seeming certainty, from a link from a link in Craig’s original piece. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

    Simply either locally on the machine concerned or remotely logged in the files concerned are simply tarred or zipped up before being exfiltrated, this is standard operating procedure for most malware or a rational human being, either over the network or to an attached mass storage device, the whole is transferred as one rather than assorted separate files. This has the advantage of preserving the original file attributes themselves, including timestamps; directory structure etcetera, which in themselves are useful metadata. Copying file locally does not alter file modification date/time, and these can in any case be trivially forged at will. What if anything am I missing here?

  • Tony M

    And the important thing is what they reveal about the character of this Clinton human i.e. despicable, and stupid too, utterly stupid to have made so many indiscreet admissions in writing, surely she as have most people must realise that there is no such as as a secure medium, even if the network transfers are encrypted, at the endpoints either sender or recipient side they aren’t, unless encrypted storage is used and even then for an infinitesimally short time at least the plaintext is contained in accessible volatile memory. Perhaps she thought she was untouchable, I would say when persons hold positions of great power they better well be squeaky clean, not thoroughly wicked widely adjudged war-criminals, and have no as yet unknown dark secrets, or expect them to be found out and broadcast far and wide.

    Until we hang by the neck (or by the feet I don’t mind) our own still-living war-criminal leadership, financial criminals, and high-government officials, starting with Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and working down through their respective cabinets, military, intelligence, civil-servants and media, assessing their complicity and culpability, and deal with them severely, terminally – legally lawfully, or we the mob will take care of them – we’re never again (if we ever did) going to have the type of honest moral governance and functional democracy to which we aspire. We need to set an example or spiral further into this morass. String ’em up high.

    • Molloy

      .

      Tony M, agreed.

      The Yawning Heights; Zinoviev A . . . . . never fails to explain the sociopaths,


      ‘Your complaints are childish,’ Colleague replied. ‘You say you’ve got ten parasites, five trouble-makers, three informers and two paranoiacs. I think you’re bloody lucky. There are two hundred people in my department. Two of them work half-way decently—one from stupidity, the other from habit. For the rest—well, great parasites have little parasites upon their backs.

      Sláinte

      .

  • Stonky

    Does anybody know if the original Guardian story was cached? I would have thought such a transparent pack of lies would have been cached several times over. Anybody have a link?

  • Gary Weglarz

    Luke Harding has all the credibility and ethical grounding of a Rachel Maddow in the U.S. In other words, absolutely zero credibility and zero ethical grounding. But hey, the pays great, just ask Rachel! Shills for empire can be sure that they’ll never miss a meal.

    • Paul Greenwood

      You mean the CIA-funded man inside Ecuadorean Intelligence ?

      BTW. – I find it funny how Kim Sengupta in Indie (KGB First Directorate Oligarch Rag) quotes Kurt Volker as US rep in UKR since he is CIA, bagman to John McCain and there to play the role of Konrad Henlein in Sudetenland

  • Radar O’Reilly

    Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies 131

    Craig, you need to add the British Broadcasting Corporation to your MI6 partial list, as incredulously the 5:30am News Briefing on Radio Four just read out the Harding Guardian article verbatim, with no qualifiers. Vile agit prop. Blatant lies, according to the overnight developments which they didn’t just overlook, but ignore.

    (Severe difficulties posting, wi-fi then 4G denying that your site exists)

  • Paul Greenwood

    The Guardian had a huge taxpayer subsidy for years. Effectively all public sector jobs were advertised in the Classifieds in The Guardian until it was decided to set up Websites and migrate from Classified to Online.

    That is the story of newspapers – stripped of classifieds – especially cars (Guardian lived on profits of Autotrader selling the stake down to fund losses) and now gets kickbacks from the Intelligence Slush Funds with probable hidden bonuses to Editor and key journalists.

    DT has decided to compete with DM for market share and have Agony Uncles and recruit DM staff just as DM recruited Heffer and other exiles from DT. Coughlin gets his salary covered by Min Def so he costs them little

  • John Leone

    Amen.
    Would you please tell the public exactly who it was who gave you the DNC emails, so that this madness can stop? A disaffected insider- who? Does this expose you to legal jeopardy?
    Thanks for your defense of truth.
    Yours
    John Leone

    • bj

      I too would love to see that answered by Craig — not to know who it was, but to know who weren’t.

      The smart thing to do of course is for Craig to keep it all to himself, until maybe the appropriate time.

      • Molloy

        .

        “Libel is such a lovely action in London since it reverses the burden of proof”

        . . . . . . and makes lawyers very rich at public expense.

        The collective commentariat (here) have more than adequately established libel.

        .

1 2 3 4