Did Manafort meet with Assange during 2016 campaign? Manafort denies it |
Politics Election

Did Manafort meet with Assange during 2016 campaign? Manafort denies it

The Los Angeles Times
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures to supporters outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been in self imposed exile since 2012.
Paul Manafort says in a statement that a Guardian report saying he met with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy is “totally false and deliberately libelous.” Manafort says that he has never been contacted by “anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly.”

WASHINGTON — The London-based Guardian newspaper reported Tuesday that Paul Manafort met privately with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in the same month Manafort joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting that could carry vast implications for the investigation of Russia’s election meddling.

The alleged meeting took place in March 2016 inside Ecuador’s Embassy in London, where Assange has sought refuge for several years to avoid potential prosecution, the newspaper reported. Four months later, in July 2016, WikiLeaks began releasing a flood of Democratic Party emails that U.S. officials say had been hacked by Russian operatives.

Manafort, who was named Trump’s campaign chairman in June 2016, was convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion in August this year. On Tuesday, he denied any meeting with Assange, calling the Guardian report “totally false and deliberately libelous.”

“I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort, who is in jail awaiting sentencing, said in a statement issued through a spokesman. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”

A clear connection between Manafort and Assange, if it exists, could be key evidence for special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into whether anyone from Trump’s team illegally conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election.

A dozen Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in July for stealing tens of thousands of internal emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and then leaking them to WikiLeaks as part of a covert Moscow effort to boost Trump’s campaign and undermine his Democratic rival.

The alleged Manafort-Assange meetings could not be independently confirmed. WikiLeaks denied the story on Twitter, saying the Guardian report was destined to become “one of the most infamous news disasters.”

The special counsel’s office declined comment. A representative for Ecuador’s foreign relations ministry also declined to comment on the Guardian report.

Manafort’s court case has been in turmoil in recent days.

A Republican political operative turned international lobbyist, he was convicted by a federal court in Virginia in August for his role in a massive financial fraud scheme stemming from his work for Ukraine’s former government. He later pleaded guilty to related charges in Washington, D.C., and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors on Mueller’s team.

But the special counsel’s office said late Monday that Manafort had violated his plea agreement by repeatedly lying to federal investigators. Prosecutors said they would file another court document that “sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies.”

Manafort’s defense lawyers said he “believes he has provided truthful information,” but they agreed to move forward with sentencing. A date has not been set.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.