Category: News

The Guardian has published claims from unnamed sources that Paul Manafort, former head of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, had “secret talks” with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on three occasions. These claims are completely false and the story has been fabricated.

The Embassy’s visitor logs – maintained by Ecuador – show no such visits, since they did not occur.

This is not the first time that The Guardian, and in particular its writer Luke Harding, have fabricated a story about Assange.

After widespread criticism from journalists across the political spectrum, The Guardian has begun to backpedal its story, adding “sources say” to the headline and editing hedging qualifications throughout the piece.

WikiLeaks is fundraising to file a lawsuit against The Guardian for libel. Contribute here.

Update: 3 December 2018

The Canary reports that former Consul to Ecuador Fidel Narváez “insisted that the claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is entirely false.” The Daily Dot reports as well.

The Guardian concealed third author of Manafort-Assange fabrication: Fernando Villavicencio, the CIA-connected advisor thought to potentially be The Guardian‘s source for the story, is actually listed on the article’s print edition byline.

Reactions

Follow Courage on Twitter for continuous updates and reactions.

Update: 

STATEMENT from Manafort: “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.” (1/2)

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018

Original story

Incredible: @TheGuardian is running an entirely bogus story as its front page headline just hours before @rcfp US EDVA hearing on the unsealing of the #AssangeIndictment.
Dan Collyns and Luke Harding have been peddling entirely false Russia propaganda for months.@dcms #FAKENEWS pic.twitter.com/90j1QqgPTa

— Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) November 27, 2018

SCOOP: In letter today to Assange’s lawyers, Guardian’s Luke Harding, winner of Private Eye’s Plagiarist of the Year, falsely claims jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had secret meetings with Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in story Guardian are “planning to run”. pic.twitter.com/ZEw7Hjwtki

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018

The authors of the bogus Guardian story, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding, were in Ecuador 10 days ago with US-funded Villavicencio, who they have previously bylined with in bogus stories. This picture was taken last week. pic.twitter.com/hK4SFCJgKI

— Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) November 27, 2018

latest #Guardian revelations on #PaulManfort? Based on “anonymous sources” + intelligence from Ecuador’s Senain. NOTE: if #PaulManafort actually visited Julian #Assange to discuss very sensitive info/plans,he is a complete idiot: NO way to avoid US-UK surveillance against embassy

— stefania maurizi (@SMaurizi) November 27, 2018

have you noted that each time the press run an article challenging the main narrative on Julian #Assange, an article trying to destroy his reputation follows shortly?

— stefania maurizi (@SMaurizi) November 27, 2018

Remember when The Guardian falsely said that Assange had hacked the embassy systems, and then modified their article post-publication after WikiLeaks threatened to sue? That was Collyns, Harding and Villavicencio.https://t.co/1G2t2hvzfq pic.twitter.com/zFSlNpk1rP

— Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) November 27, 2018

Villavicencio has fabricated claims about people visiting Assange in the past. In May he claimed Farage visited Assange on 28 April this year, a month after Ecuador initiated its 8 month-long isolation of Assange, banning phone calls, all visits, internet.https://t.co/ZdzeTsCUtL pic.twitter.com/oD9TdPyE5p

— Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) November 27, 2018

Also, embassy employees who were there during that entire time period say they never saw Manafort or heard of his visit. Senain is out for JA because he published their internal documents. They seek an excuse to get him out of the Embassy. Seems the Guardian is playing along.

— Eva Golinger (@evagolinger) November 27, 2018

Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies – The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel https://t.co/4H2v0XwZOD

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) November 27, 2018

I have worked as a media partner of #WikiLeaks since 2009, I have NEVER EVER heard that a visitor has been admitted to the @EmbajadaEcuUK without his/her name, passport being registered: it has alwas been a strict procedure

— stefania maurizi (@SMaurizi) November 27, 2018

Villavicencio made the ludicrous claim in July that Manafort could be Wikileaks source of the DNC material.
In the same story, Villavicencio tried to implicate former diplomat Fidel Narvaez in a plot.
Collyns and Harding’s have a habit of recycling Villavicencio fabrications. pic.twitter.com/Wg77m6gRbO

— Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) November 27, 2018

Folks the skepticism to that Guardian report couldn’t be more broad-based:@ggreenwald @aaronjmate @auerfeld @pwnallthethings @benjaminwittes @NatSecGeek and me rarely ALL agree. But we do all think that this is sketchy.

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) November 27, 2018

Guardian hack Luke Harding was caught plagiarizing me, @yashalevine & others—and it had zero effect on his career advancement. If his latest “scoop” on Manafort/Assange is debunked, there will be zero consequences. Most of us still can’t fully grasp this https://t.co/8AeD8GRXh0

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) November 27, 2018

Wow, look at Guardian rapidly back-pedalling on Assange/Manafort claims. Expect more changes…https://t.co/l8owqUdUGw

— Media Lens (@medialens) November 27, 2018

I offer some caution about that Guardian report everyone is talking about: https://t.co/lu40ql2VWj

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) November 27, 2018

Reasons for skepticism:
1) the sources are vague
2) Assange under heavy surveillance, so a Manafort visit would be easy to prove
3) WL denies it (https://t.co/wWPaLKczcf); Manafort calls it “100% false”
4) my 2017 interview w/ the author of this piece: (https://t.co/P52sVRaDsA) https://t.co/RROdsA5EUc

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 27, 2018

more reasons: 4) the timing: US prosecutors are fighting a bid to unseal Assange’s indictment & Ecuador has denied Assange lawyers access to him (https://t.co/LPyHlDvUmX)

5) along w/ Manafort, there were even “Russians”: 🤔 pic.twitter.com/vuXBK8WaV7

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 27, 2018

Guardian quietly edits itself away from completely fabricated blockbuster “Manafort visited Assange at embassy” story. Expect more changes. Will editor @KathViner resign? https://t.co/JgEXSTXFzg pic.twitter.com/93mdLRtncb

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018

Julian Assange’s attorney @suigenerisjen tells @CNN Assange did not meet with Paul Manafort as detailed in the Guardian story. “No such meetings took place,” she said. Adding they have had “no contact with the Mueller investigation.”

— Kara Scannell (@KaraScannell) November 27, 2018

WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy” — which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news. https://t.co/VaoMESN5RO

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018

See our ongoing liveblog of Julian Assange’s endangered situation in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London

The Washington Post reported this morning that a US Department of Justice prosecutor “inadvertently” disclosed the fact that the US has done what WikiLeaks and its supporters have warned it would do since 2010: charged Julian Assange:

The disclosure came in a filing in a case unrelated to Assange. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” Later, Dwyer wrote the charges would “need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”

From the document revealing the indictment:

3. The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing,
including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation. Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.

5. The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant as well as this motion and proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.

As the New York Times reports:

Barry Pollack, an American lawyer representing Mr. Assange, denounced the apparent development.

“The news that criminal charges have apparently been filed against Mr. Assange is even more troubling than the haphazard manner in which that information has been revealed,” Mr. Pollack wrote in an email. “The government bringing criminal charges against someone for publishing truthful information is a dangerous path for a democracy to take.”

Human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, who has been advising Assange since 2010, spoke to Democracy Now! this morning to discuss the reported charges, warning that an Assange prosecution would endanger press freedoms worldwide

 

Robinson also spoke to MSNBC

MSNBC also interviewed Frank Figliuzzi, former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Obama (February 7, 2011 – July 31, 2012):

This has deep meaning also for me personally because I was in Washington at head quarters when the entire intelligence community was wrestling with what to do with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and the great debate about whether we should even treat them as a foreign power. That they were doing that much damage to us. […] Understand that our intelligence community has Wikileaks covered like a blanket — as if they are a foreign adversary.

Figliuzzi’s statements reflect the the US government’s intent to prosecute Assange for publishing all along, as his tenure with the FBI long pre-dates alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fact that the “entire intelligence community” was working on an Assange prosecution signals the amount of surveillance Assange and other members of WikiLeaks have been under. Ecuador has admitted to having spent 1 million pounds per year, most of it reportedly on the “security” inside the embassy which it has been revealed is tasked with spying on Assange’s activities.

A grave threat to press freedom worldwide

Glenn Greenwald writes, ‘As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom’

What has changed since that Obama-era consensus? Only one thing: in 2016, WikiLeaks published documents that reflected poorly on Democrats and the Clinton campaign rather than the Bush-era wars, rendering Democrats perfectly willing, indeed eager, to prioritize their personal contempt for Assange over any precepts of basic press freedoms, civil liberties, or Constitutional principles. It’s really just as simple – and as ignoble – as that.

It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information – long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms – can now be legally punished.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner said:

Full statement by @ACLU’s @benwizner: pic.twitter.com/v8ziFsjIHC

— Jamil Dakwar (@jdakwar) November 16, 2018

In its report on the leaked charge, the New York Times wrote:

Though the legal move against Mr. Assange remained a mystery on Thursday, charges centering on the publication of information of public interest — even if it was obtained from Russian government hackers — would create a precedent with profound implications for press freedoms.

Update: the Times has updated its article on the charges to highlight press freedom issues:

Why does charging Mr. Assange raise concerns about press freedoms?

Mr. Assange is not a traditional journalist, but what he does at WikiLeaks has also been difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations, like The New York Times, do every day: seek out and publish information that officials would prefer to be kept secret, including classified national security matters.

The Justice Department has never charged journalists with violating the law for doing their jobs. But in recent years, it has become far more common to charge officials with a crime for providing information to reporters. Depending on the facts, the case against Mr. Assange could set a precedent further chilling investigative journalism.

Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, has issued the following statement:

Any charges brought against WikiLeaks for their publishing activities pose a profound and incredibly dangerous threat to press freedom. Whether you like Assange or hate him, the theories used in a potential Espionage Act prosecution would threaten countless reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other news outlets that report on government secrets all the time. While everyone will have to wait and see what the charges detail, it’s quite possible core First Amendment principles will be at stake in this case.

Human Rights Watch’s Executive Director Ken Roth:

Deeply troubling if the Trump administration, which has shown little regard for media freedom, would charge Assange for receiving from a government official and publishing classified information–exactly what journalists do all the time. https://t.co/PkyH1UMHDK pic.twitter.com/PcUO6t9NGz

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) November 16, 2018

 

Edward Snowden:

You can despise Wikileaks and everything it stands for. You can think Assange is an evil spirit reanimated by Putin himself. But you cannot support the prosecution of a publisher for publishing without narrowing the basic rights every newspaper relies on. https://t.co/Hs5XH6Vmzz

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 16, 2018

The Committee to Protect Journalists released a statement on the charges:

“We are closely monitoring reports that prosecutors have prepared a sealed indictment against Julian Assange,” said Alexandra Ellerbeck, CPJ’s North America program coordinator. “While the charges are not known, we would be concerned by a prosecution that construes publishing government documents as a crime. This would set a dangerous precedent that could harm all journalists, whether inside or outside the United States.”

Suit to unseal charges

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press has filed a motion in the Eastern District of Virginia to unseal the U.S. government’s criminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange:

“It’s important that the public understand what these charges are, and there’s no longer any justification for keeping the criminal complaint, the docket, and other filings related to the prosecution sealed,” said Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown.

USA Today‘s James Bovard argues that Assange should be given a Presidential Medal of Freedom, in a reframing of the award’s purpose:

Because few things are more perilous to democracy than permitting politicians to coverup crimes, there should be a new Medal of Freedom category commending individuals who have done the most to expose official lies. This particular award could be differentiated by including a little steam whistle atop the medal — vivifying how leaks can prevent a political system from overheating or exploding.

Assange would deserve such a medal […]

Organizations like Wikileaks are among the best hopes for rescuing democracy from Leviathan. Unless we presume politicians have a divine right to deceive the governed, America should honor individuals who expose federal crimes. Whistleblowers should be especially welcome by anyone riled up over Trump’s lies.

On March 28, 2018, the government of Ecuador imposed a unilateral incommunication on Julian Assange. Mr. Assange’s ability to the communicate with the outside world was blocked both physically and by embassy and foreign ministry authorities for seven months:

• 3 signal jammers installed by the embassy blocked phone and wifi signal.
• All visits, other than legal visits, were refused by the embassy, including meetings requested by major human rights organisations, and members of parliament.
• For months, Mr. Assange’s lawyers requested that the government provide the administrative or legal basis for the restrictive measures, in order to challenge their legality before the courts. The government refused to provide information that would allow him to challenge the measures before a court.

Ecuador’s President told AP: “if Mr Assange promises to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States then we have no problem with him going online.”

On 12 October 2018, the embassy delivered a “protocol” with explicit threats to revoke Mr. Assange’s asylum if Mr. Assange, or any of his guests, breached or were perceived to have breached, any of the 28 “rules” in the protocol. The rules provide that the embassy can seize Mr. Assange’s property or his visitors’ property and hand these to UK police, and report Mr. Assange’s visitors to UK authorities. The protocol requires the IMEI codes and serial numbers of electronic devices used inside the embassy. The private information required of visitors and Mr. Assange’s lawyers by the embassy is shared with undisclosed agencies.

The “protocol” also forbids Assange from doing journalism and expressing his opinions, under threat of losing his asylum.

The protocol appears in the context of a strong, supportive ruling by the Interamerican Court on Human Rights, setting out Ecuador’s obligations in relation to Mr. Assange (paras 178 onwards), which was announced amidst reports in the Sunday Times that the UK and Ecuador were reaching a “high level” agreement to breach Assange’s asylum by handing him over to UK police to be arrested.

Ecuador recently secured $1.1bn in loans. The US representative to the IMF told Ecuador in late 2017 that loans were conditional on Ecuador resolving the Assange and Chevron matters. Throughout the Summer pressure from US law-makers mounted on Ecuador to hand Assange over to the UK.

In June, President Moreno met with Vice-President Mike Pence. Moreno denied Assange had been discussed. The White House, on the other hand, stated:

VP Pence meets with Ecuador leader, and WH official tells pool: ‘The VP raised the issue of Mr. Assange. It was a constructive conversation. They agreed to remain in close coordination on potential next steps going forward.’ @julianassange @wikileaks

— TimJohnson (@TimJohnson4) June 28, 2018

Ahead of Pence’s visit, ten senators from both sides of the political divide urged the Vice President to pressure President Moreno over Assange. Ahead of the midterms, the ranking Democrat of House Foreign Relations Committee made an inflammatory demand directly to Ecuador’s president Moreno to hand Assange over to UK authorities. In the letter, Assange is called “a dangerous criminal and a threat to global security” and the letter says Ecuador that crucial bilateral relations in the area of commerce and security depend on Ecuador “resolv[ing] the significant challenge” of “the status of Julian Assange“.

The “protocol” (Spanish original, English, unofficial), if implemented in this manner, aims to circumvent the obligations set out in the Interamerican Court’s ruling with the pretext of violations of ’’protocol rules’. The protocol is a flagrant violation of the Interamerican Court’s decision.

The “protocol” and the forced, arbitrary incommunication imposed on Mr. Assange for seven months was the subject of a protective action measure before a court in Quito on 25 and 29 October 2018.

During the proceedings, Mr. Assange spoke to the court over videolink.

The judge refused to rule on the constitutionality of the government’s actions against Mr. Assange and said it was a matter for the Constitutional Court.

The judge declined to hear witnesses and declined to accept evidence documenting the embassy’s visitor ban.

On 30 October 2018 the case was appealed to the provincial court.

Application to the District Court for Protection Action measure

Accion de Proteccion

Amicus Curiae

During the proceedings five amicus curiae intervened: academics and human rights workers, all in favour of Mr. Assange’s application (Spanish):

Amicus Curiae Fernando Casado

Amicus Curiae Jaime Fabián Burbano Gutiérrez, Colectivo KolectiVOZ