The Guardian is at it again. This time, resorting to the old gag of inserting the obligatory propaganda caveat “sources say” to its original report.
In the report, co-authored by the paper’s Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, it was claimed that ex-Trump campaign executive Paul Manafort met with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange several times including “around the time” he joined the Trump campaign.
#TheGuardian #LukeHarding pull the same gag #CNN does daily to launder its #FakeNews by inserting the obligatory propaganda caveat “sources say”. Why not just merge offices of intel agencies and Islington & save loads of money, no? https://t.co/hyU1YD6s7n
— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) November 28, 2018
Pictured Above: Screen grab from The Guardian’s front page, 27 Nov 2018.
The Guardian report also claims that both the Manafort and Assange camps were given a chance to respond and issue denials but failed to do so before publication. To which Wikileaks responded quickly with:
More falsehoods from the Guardian. @WikiLeaks scooped the Guardian and made the denial public to 5.4 million — including the editor of the Guardian, @KathViner, who follows @WIkiLeaks — hours before the Guardian published its astonishing fraud.https://t.co/FFwpioILuf
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 28, 2018
And then the whistleblowing publisher put a million dollar challenge on offer, ripping the paper’s report and its co-author, Luke Harding, an ardent Russophobe:
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange. https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
For those readers not familiar with Harding’s previous work, he literally wrote a book titled “Collusion” where he puts his grand Russia conspiracy theory adventurism on full display. Watch as Aaron Maté of TheRealNews obliterates his Russiagate thesis:
Wikileaks has now upped the ante, with an open challenge to prove who is more “trustworthy and accurate” as a publisher:
Question: What’s the best “define your own bet” market where WikiLeaks can let the general public bet on who will be proved trustworthy and accurate, WikiLeaks or the Guardian?
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 28, 2018
We remind our readers that Wikileaks, whether you love or loathe it, has a 100% perfect record on the facts in its reports. The Guardian, however, not even close.
Update (3 Dec 2018): A third author of the report, Fernando Villavicencio, is revealed in the byline of The Guardian’s print edition as pictured below. Villavicencio was omitted as a co-author in the online version of the report. For more on this aspect of the story, click here.
READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate Files
SUPPORT 21WIRE – SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV