This article is from the source 'rtcom' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.rt.com/news/444995-assange-manafort-wikileaks-guardian/
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| WikiLeaks betting ‘$1mn & editor’s head’ against Guardian claims that Manafort met Assange | |
| (about 11 hours later) | |
| After the Guardian released an anonymously-sourced report on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s alleged meetings with Julian Assange, Wikileaks says it was asked for comment, but its denial was not included in the article. | After the Guardian released an anonymously-sourced report on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s alleged meetings with Julian Assange, Wikileaks says it was asked for comment, but its denial was not included in the article. |
| The report by Guardian’s Luke Harding, which is light on relevant details and based on unnamed “well-placed sources,” claims that Manafort, who managed US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and is currently in jail on related charges, met with Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange three times during Assange’s ongoing exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. | The report by Guardian’s Luke Harding, which is light on relevant details and based on unnamed “well-placed sources,” claims that Manafort, who managed US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and is currently in jail on related charges, met with Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange three times during Assange’s ongoing exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. |
| The article says it’s unknown what the two supposedly discussed, but hints heavily that it was related to Russia’s alleged interference in the election – namely the leak of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. Those documents were “stolen by Russian intelligence officers,” the Guardian claims. | The article says it’s unknown what the two supposedly discussed, but hints heavily that it was related to Russia’s alleged interference in the election – namely the leak of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. Those documents were “stolen by Russian intelligence officers,” the Guardian claims. |
| As such, Harding writes, the meetings could be of interest to FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been trying and failing to find definitive proof of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia. | As such, Harding writes, the meetings could be of interest to FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been trying and failing to find definitive proof of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia. |
| Except the meetings didn’t happen, Wikileaks says. The whistleblowing website is so adamant about this, it’s willing to bet “a million dollars and its editor’s head” on it. | Except the meetings didn’t happen, Wikileaks says. The whistleblowing website is so adamant about this, it’s willing to bet “a million dollars and its editor’s head” on it. |
| Moreover, Wikileaks has posted a screenshot of what it says is Harding’s request for comment it received hours before the Guardian’s publication. Comment was given but not included, it says. | Moreover, Wikileaks has posted a screenshot of what it says is Harding’s request for comment it received hours before the Guardian’s publication. Comment was given but not included, it says. |
| Over an hour after publication the Guardian article was updated to include Wikileaks’ reaction. Whether Harding’s anonymous sources will ultimately win against the whistleblowers’ all-in bet remains to be seen. | Over an hour after publication the Guardian article was updated to include Wikileaks’ reaction. Whether Harding’s anonymous sources will ultimately win against the whistleblowers’ all-in bet remains to be seen. |
| Several hours after wagering 1 million greenbacks that the story was a fraud, WikiLeaks noted that the Guardian had made edits to its original story, attributing the scoop to “sources” and drizzling the text with less certain-sounding language. | Several hours after wagering 1 million greenbacks that the story was a fraud, WikiLeaks noted that the Guardian had made edits to its original story, attributing the scoop to “sources” and drizzling the text with less certain-sounding language. |
| For example, the sentence “Why Manafort sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear,” was changed to “Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear.” | For example, the sentence “Why Manafort sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear,” was changed to “Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear.” |
| WikiLeaks called the changes “back-pedalling” on a “100% fake” story and, provocatively, asked if the paper’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, would resign. | WikiLeaks called the changes “back-pedalling” on a “100% fake” story and, provocatively, asked if the paper’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, would resign. |
| Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you. | Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you. |