The Guardian dropped a bombshell report claiming Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, “around the time he joined Trump’s campaign.”
The news that threatened to blow special counsel Robert Muller’s Russian collusion probe wide open had anti-Trump forces on both the left and right all a’twitter, but lo and behold, it may be all for naught.
From The Guardian:
Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.
Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House. […]
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 “bombshell” report had rabid Never Trumper Bill Kristol, founder of The Weekly Standard, rushing to conclusions in his zest to take down the president.
“What campaign chair hasn’t held secret talks with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy in London?” tweeted Kristol, who appears to have botched a hashtag when he included “NO COLLUSION,” without the required ‘#’ symbol.
Report Advertisement
Kristol was joined by far-left loon George Takei, of Star Trek fame, and others who reveled in the seemingly bad news for Trump.
But for the aforementioned “but” — as it turns out, Assange responded to the story to adamantly deny that the alleged meeting ever took place.
Calling the reporter a “serial fabricator,” a tweet from the Wikileaks Twitter account laid down a SERIOUS wager on the accuracy of The Guardian report.
How serious? How about “a million dollars and its editor’s head.”
“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.”
The account then added a little perspective to the alleged flub and a subtle change made by The Guardian to the headline of the story:.
Here’s a sampling of the reactions to the latest developments from Twitter:
A migrant who was housed in the town of Brüggen is said to have raped the teenage daughter of his host. The perpetrator remains at large. For reasons of victim protection protecting the traitorous politicians, the public was not informed, police claim.
The “refugee” is said to have raped the teenager, and on October 29, immediately after the assault, the young girl accompanied her parents to the police station and reported the rape.
After research by the editor of the Rheinische Post a major German regional daily newspaper, it was revealed that the teenager had visited “two young men” in a flat where they drank alcohol. A 26-year-old then left the room, and the 22-year-old is said to have stayed behind after which he raped the teenager.
The police made enquiries and found the perpetrators, but they have not arrested the 22-year-old. “We do not have an urgent suspicion at the moment,” said Lothar Gathen, spokesman for the prosecutor in Mönchengladbach on Thursday.
There is also no risk of absconding, since the two defendants were in places that are known to the investigators, he said. The 22-year-old denies the act. He comes from Iraq according to police. The man is said to have lived in an accommodation for asylum seekers in Brüggen, but now no longer stay there, but with relatives in Essen.
The adolescent girl and the 22-year-old suspect evidently knew each other from the company where the young man was employed. The girl’s father had offered the migrant a job and has long been committed to the integration of “refugees” into the labor market.
He regularly offers internships and other support to migrants. The 22-year-old had been working for him since March, he said in an interview with the editorial staff.
The father is stunned that the migrant employee has raped his daughter: “That is very dreadful. That was a person whom I trusted. The event is horrible for us,” said the father. The daughter now struggles to sleep and has regular panic attacks. The father said he felt a great helplessness, “especially because that was a person who was so trusted”.The police are continuing their investigation. There are many contradictions in the statements made by the parties, said police spokesman Wolfgang Goertz. The case will be handed over to the prosecutor in the coming days .The prosecutor will then decide whether there are enough facts to go ahead with the case. Both the defendant and the adolescent are now represented by lawyers.The fact that the police did not immediately inform the public about the migrant’s alleged rape was not due to the fact that the police wanted to sweep anything under the rug, police spokesman Goertz said.“We did not communicate that for reasons of...
The U.S. Army already fields an impressive array of weapons. But as the U.S. Army prepares itself for potential conflicts against high-tech Russian and Chinese armies , the Army is working on a slew of new systems ranging from tanks to missiles.The result will be the gradual disappearance of the familiar weapons born during the Cold War -- the Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters -- that symbolize America's arsenal. In their place will be a new generation of weapons.Here are five that we will likely see in the coming years:1. Next-Generation Combat Vehicle:Since the 1980s, the backbone of the Army's armor force has been the M-1 Abrams tank and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. Both designs have been upgraded and modernized over the years -- the latest M1A2 has far better sensors and electronics than a 1980s M1 -- but these are essentially 40-year-old designs meant to stop a Soviet tank assault across the Fulda Gap. The counterinsurgency "small wars" of the past two decades has made armor secondary to infantry boots on the ground, but as the U.S. refocuses on the prospect of mechanized "big war" against Russia and China, there is new love for tanks.The Army's Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program aims to create a 21st Century armor fleet, including a new main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled gun and even robot tanks. The defense industry is pitching several designs , such as BAE's Swedish-designed CV90 infantry carrier. But whatever vehicles are chosen will reflect the enormous changes in technology over the past four decades: active protection systems to stop anti-tank missiles, tactical networks, and even drones as an integral part of the vehicle's systems. And for a really futuristic design, take a look at DARPA's Ground X-Vehicle Technologiesprogram, and the conceptual art of a tank that looks like a dune buggy.2. Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD):Snuggled under the protection of the U.S. Air Force, and facing low-tech opponents like the Taliban, the Army's tactical air defenses have lapsed since the Cold War. But with the proliferation of drones, and the threat of high-tech Russian and Chinese aircraft and helicopters, the skies aren't looking so friendly for the ground-pounders. For now, the Army is opting for a stopgap solution that mounts Stinger anti-aircraft missiles on a Stryker light armored vehicle. But the Army plans to mount directed energy weapons -- lasers -- on the Stryker, which can engage targets more quickly than missiles, and don't run out of ammunition (except for electricity).3. Robot tanks:
These were once the stuff of science fiction. But the fact that the U.S. Army has a program called Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle attests to the rise of the machine. The Army already has a robot test vehicle: an armed, remote-controlled M113 armored personnel carrier, and is vigorously pursuing autonomous trucks that can haul supplies without a driver.
4. Future Vertical Lift:
On three past occasions, presidents temporarily closed the southern border, something President Donald Trump threatened Monday to do permanently.
Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both closed the border over drug-related issues that halted entry from Mexico into the United States.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, shortly after taking office amid crisis, closed the border after the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.
While Johnson’s example was unique, all three cases dealt with a president’s authority to act on the border during an emergency. The Trump administration has determined that the series of “caravans” of thousands of Central American migrants headed to the border is an emergency.
With Nixon in 1969 and Reagan in 1985—as is the case today—the United States was trying to pressure the Mexican government’s law enforcement into stepping up its efforts.
Trump tweeted early Monday:
Before boarding Marine One on Monday afternoon, Trump told a gaggle of reporters: “Mexico wants to see if they can get it straightened out, but we’ve, during certain times as you know, closed the border. … Here’s the bottom line, nobody is going to come into this country unless they come legally.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued the Trump administration on multiple fronts—gaining a recent lower court victory halting the administration’s asylum policy—declined to comment for this report. However, the organization is calling for Congress to pull funding from the Department of Homeland Security amid the border crisis:
Democrats and other critics mocked President Donald Trump after he activated U.S. troops in late October to help reinforce the southwest border after concerns that thousands of Central American migrants moving in caravans towards the United States would try to illegally rush across.They accused Trump of hyping the threat as recently as early November, claiming that the migrants were hundreds of miles away and that only a fraction of the caravan would make it to the border. However, only two weeks later, the first of thousands of migrants arrivedat the Mexican border with California.Mexican officials now say almost 9,000 migrants have arrived. Mexico’s Interior Department said over the weekend about 500 tried to rush the border, with U.S. authorities putting the number at 1,000, according to the Associated Press.Here’s a look back at some of those critics’ best lines — but worst predictions:1. Former President Obama: “Refugees 1,000 miles away.”Former President Barack Obama campaigned in Miami five days before the midterm elections on November 2 where he slammed what he called a “political stunt” after Trump ordered active duty troops to the border.“They’re telling you the existential threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees 1,000 miles away,” he said. “They’re even taking our brave troops away from their families for a political stunt at the border. And the men and women of our military deserve better than that.”In fact, the refugees began arriving in Tijuana much earlier than expected after catchingbus rides.
2. Rep. Ted Lieu: Caravans “always get disbanded.”Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) on November 2 on CNN dismissed the idea of the migrant caravan showing up to the U.S. border, also arguing it was about “1,000 miles away” and that if it did show up, it would be a “very small group of people.”“This caravan is about 1,000 miles away. And there’s been caravans over the years and they always get disbanded. Imagine walking across Mexico. It is incredibly difficult. By the time anyone reaches our borders, if they reach it at all, it is a very small group of people. Most of them are turned away,” he said.As mentioned above, Mexican officials told the AP there are now almost 9,000 migrants in Baja California, which borders California.3. Sen. Cory Booker: Trump wants to make the caravan “the issue.” Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on November 6 on CNN accused Trump of trying to make the caravan “the issue” ahead of the midterm elections and questioned whether Americans really cared about “people in a caravan” who were “700 miles away, 800 miles away”:
The way he’s going about this, Chris, and you know, as if our country isn’t strong enough to deal with a lot of the — 700 miles away, 800 miles away — people in a caravan. If he wants to make that the issue, when people in my state of New Jersey are worried about their health care, people in my state of New Jersey are worried about their retirement security … when I run around this country … as much as the president wants to try to whip up fear and hate, sort of the tired tropes that he’s wielding out there, Americans are concerned about the sort of bread and butter issues.
However, a recent poll out of New Jersey’s Monmouth University showed that the majority of Americans do consider the migrant caravan a threat. The poll, published on November 19, showed that 53 percent of Americans saw the migrant caravan as a threat, compared to 39 percent who did not see the caravan as a threat.4. Shepard Smith: The migrants “are more than two months away”
