This Is Big! The Guardian REWRITES ‘FAKE’ Story of Manafort-Assange Collusion


The Guardian just published a “bombshell” story, alleging that Paul Manafort met secretly with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Their story was based on “sources”. They gave the impression it was a factual story and even gave dates of 2013, 2015, and Spring 2016.

The Guardian is rewriting their story as the Press Corps questioned Sarah Sanders about it. She answered the reporter’s question by repeating the assertion that there was no collusion.

Wikileaks says it is a fake story. There were no credible sources in the story as it was spread far and wide throughout the media. Rudy Guiliani, Trump’s lawyer, called it “unequivocally fake news” as The Guardian quietly edits it.

They reported that the alleged spring 2016 meeting with Manafort and Assange suggests collusion by Trump. They wrote: “A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later, WIKILEAKS released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.”

The story was all according to “sources.” The sources were not mentioned and the Embassy has NO RECORD of the visits.


Paul Manafort has denied it and now Wikileaks has responded.


Ninety minutes after the story was written, The Guardian rewrote it.


  1. Mueller can seek to attempt to create anything he wants, but when it comes down to it, the reason for his appointment was tainted by Obama’s intentional FRAUD and Mueller’s hiring of mostly Democrat Hillary contributors to do the investigation of their opposition. Mueller may be a Republican, but he’s a Never-Trumper and Trump hater.

    • Mueller IS a RINO….one and the same with Democrats….even worse as they misrepresent their political position to the voters. The Ecuadoran Embassy had already released their logs and they contradict any assertions that Manafort EVER visited Assange…

  2. I have suspicions when anything Ukraine related is involved. We do know how State was involved in the election of Poroshenko. Manafort was one who worked for the opposition. State contended Yanukovych was against the EU and thus the reason for supporting opposition. Yet, the truth is, Yanukovych was working WITH the EU and strengthening ties. THIS was at a time when Mueller Was in the administration. It was revealed the party of Poroshenko and his group had ties with neo-Nazi groups and State was aware of this. Therefore, is Mueller and people during his term in office trying to suppress any revelations that could be exposed. There are also associations with the Uranium deal.

    The more the news is reported, “leaked” by Mueller, it is certainly possible he is attempting to create a “six degrees of separation” case against certain people.

  3. Isn’t it rather suspicious, and convenient, that this article comes out One day after Mueller petitions the court that Manafort is Not cooperating as per his plea agreement. It looks as if Mueller is wanting Manafort to “admit” contacts with Assange in order to create ANOTHER rabbit-hole that can prolong the investigation ad infinitum. It may be the case of one Democrat who said Mueller will continue his investigation for a “decade”.

    I have read where there were actually Four FISA warrants in total. Manafort and Page have been named as two. Given what we learned about surveillance from Snowden there is No question that the Intelligence Community would have collected all kinds of communications between these parties. In Mueller’s capacity he would have access to this information since the Rosenstein order was a continuation of the counter-intelligence investigation. Yet, all indications are that Mueller is relying on a “fishing expedition”. It is why I firmly believe Mueller and his cohorts are engaging in “opposition research” rather than a criminal endeavor. The few indictments that Rosenstein laid out from Mueller have little substance and appears more for optics. Most of the content in the indictments were evidently taken from old news reports and the vague Intelligence report.

    • Yes there were four FISA warrants, but not on four “different people”. Each FISA after the first one was merely a “renewal” of the “surveillance”. Think of it as a spider web. You start with that center line, but it branches out in every direction as each strand touches the next and shoots of in a different direction. Literally anyone who was spoken to, emailed, spoken about, etc from that first warrant became entangled in the web. I have little doubt that the first one was boot strapped some months AFTER the surveillance actually started.

      • I’m not writing about the subsequent FISA warrants on Page that were “renewals”. There Was one on Manafort dating back to 2013. In addition to those two there were others, yet to be specified. On each FISA subject there are ONLY two hops that can be included, and no further.

Leave a Reply