{"id":240597,"date":"2021-07-16T02:14:50","date_gmt":"2021-07-16T02:14:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newmatilda.com\/?p=142056"},"modified":"2021-07-16T02:14:50","modified_gmt":"2021-07-16T02:14:50","slug":"guardians-putin-scoop-is-trumped-by-a-history-of-bluff-and-vicious-blunder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/07\/16\/guardians-putin-scoop-is-trumped-by-a-history-of-bluff-and-vicious-blunder\/","title":{"rendered":"Guardian\u2019s Putin Scoop Is Trumped By A History Of Bluff And Vicious Blunder"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

DON’T MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only thing bigger than the news out of Russia this morning that leaked documents reveal Vladimir Putin personally authorised an operation to assist Donald Trump into the White House in 2016 is the caveat that comes with the story.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And by caveat, I mean it may or may not be true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In case you missed, early this morning the Guardian reported<\/a>,\n\u201cDocuments suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in\nUS democracy\u201d. The headline on the story is \u201cKremlin papers appear to show\nPutin\u2019s plot to put Trump in White House\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opening pars read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cVladimir Putin\npersonally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a \u201cmentally\nunstable\u201d Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed\nsession of Russia\u2019s national security council, according to what are assessed\nto be leaked Kremlin documents.
\n\u201cThe key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the\nRussian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
\n\u201cThey agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow\u2019s strategic\nobjectives, among them \u201csocial turmoil\u201d in the US and a weakening of the\nAmerican president\u2019s negotiating position.
\n\u201cRussia\u2019s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support\nTrump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin\u2019s signature.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By any measure, it\u2019s a very big story. If you believe it. But\nunfortunately the hurdle you have to get over to get there is huge, and I\u2019m not\nreferring to the last line of the opening paragraph, which reads \u2018according to what are assessed to be leaked\nKremlin documents\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As qualifications go, that\u2019s a ripper, as is the word \u2018suggest\u2019\nin the headline. But this is a story from the heady world of Russian\nintelligence, so it\u2019d be folly to accept anything at face value. But it\u2019s also\nnot the problem with this story. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is who published it, and who helped write it\u2026 The Guardian newspaper, and one of the bylined authors, Luke Harding, a former Moscow correspondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The July 15, 2021 story published by The Guardian.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You might remember Harding from such amazing,\nfantastical tales<\/a> as \u201cManafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian\nembassy, sources say\u201d. Here\u2019s the opening par from that 2018 train wreck: \u201cDonald\nTrump\u2019s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian\nAssange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he\njoined Trump\u2019s campaign, the Guardian has been told.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s entirely possible, indeed probable, The Guardian was<\/em> told that\u2026 in which case, they\nshould out the \u2018multiple unnamed sources\u2019 that Harding (and colleague Dan\nCollyns) relied on for the story, on the basis that they clearly lied and manufactured\nevidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harding and The Guardian \u2013 with the sort of hubris you only see from such luminaries as, say, Donald Trump (or maybe Vladimir Putin) maintain the story is true. It remains online<\/a>, uncorrected, without apology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Virtually everyone else knows its false, which is how its widely regarded in media circles. The reason why is relatively simple: if Manafort had <\/em>visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, not only would Ecuador have footage of it (and released it by now), but so would British intelligence\u2026 because they staked out the front door for seven years. And yet, The Guardian story claims Manafort visited Assange not once, but at least three times<\/em> \u2013 in 2013, 2015 and again in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The story relies entirely on anonymous sources (the ABC provides a great example of what can go wrong here<\/a> when you do that) and ridiculous claims like this: \u201cManafort\u2019s 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said, adding that the American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Followed by this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cVisitors normally\nregister with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in\nEcuador, however, say Manafort was not logged. Embassy staff were aware only\nlater of the potential significance of Manafort\u2019s visit and his political role\nwith Trump, it is understood.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So an \u2018anonymous source\u2019 remembered in great detail what a faceless, unremarkable guest to the embassy was wearing two and a half years earlier? Nothing dodgy about that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there was this: \u201cA separate internal document written by Ecuador\u2019s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists \u2018Paul Manaford [sic]\u2019 as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions \u2018Russians\u2019.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That document is only \u2018seen\u2019 by the Guardian, and not reproduced in the story. In other words, they don\u2019t have it. (By contrast, today\u2019s scoop on Putin does<\/em> include images of the alleged documents, but still\u2026 Russian intelligence\u2026 American intelligence\u2026 and more to the point, Luke Harding and The Guardian.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Julian Assange, pictured in the Equadorian embassy in 2014, with Ricardo Pati\u00f1o, Ecuador’s then Foreign Minister. (IMAGE: David G Silvers, Canciller\u00eda del Ecuador, Flickr)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, this wasn\u2019t just some \u2018shitty deception gone wrong\u2019, a regular occurrence in political reporting these days. The story actually caused harm, and was part of The Guardian\u2019s broader campaign to assassinate Assange\u2019s character around baseless claims he worked with Russian intelligence to advantage Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections. Or in the Guardian\u2019s words: \u201cThe [fake Manafort]revelation could shed new light on the sequence of events in the run-up to summer 2016, when WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails hacked by the GRU, Russia\u2019s military intelligence agency. Hillary Clinton has said the hack contributed to her defeat.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, It can’t. It didn’t. Because it was made up. But in pondering whether on not the latest Guardian \u2018scoop\u2019 is credible, it\u2019s also worth remembering how quickly Harding\u2019s Manafort story fell apart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian published on November 28, 2018. On December 3,\n2018 The New York Times broke a story<\/a>\nunder the headline \u201cManafort Discussed Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over\nto US\u201d: \u201cIn mid-May 2017, Paul Manafort, facing intensifying pressure to settle\ndebts and pay mounting legal bills, flew to Ecuador to offer his services to a\npotentially lucrative new client \u2014 the country\u2019s incoming president, Len\u00edn\nMoreno.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few months later, Moreno gave British police the green light\nto enter the embassy and snatch Assange. The Wikileaks founder has been in\nprison ever since, awaiting extradition to the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remarkably, that revelation – that Moreno met with Manafort \u2013\nwas actually contained in The Guardian\u2019s original story, but dismissed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn May 2017, Manafort flew to Ecuador to hold talks with the country\u2019s president-elect Len\u00edn Moreno. The discussions, days before Moreno was sworn in, and before Manafort was indicted \u2013 were ostensibly about a large-scale Chinese investment.<\/em>
\u201cHowever, one source in Quito suggests that Manafort also discreetly raised Assange\u2019s plight. Another senior foreign ministry source said he was sceptical Assange was mentioned. At the time Moreno was expected to continue support for him.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the problems for this story go beyond even\njust the Guardian. Harding was also the co-author of Wikileaks<\/em><\/a>: <\/em>Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> a hatchet job parading as a book which\naccused Assange of \u2018rushing to publish\u2019 the Wikileaks trove of leaked US\ndocuments without properly verifying some of the information. Oh, the irony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The book also accused Assange of putting US informants in danger\nby blindly publishing random material. Assange and Wikileaks, along with Australian\njournalist Mark Davis<\/a>, have started the opposite is true, in addition to\nrevelations from the US that it has no record of any informants ever being\nharmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a wild side note, the very book in which Harding (and\nLeigh) make this allegation includes the encrypted password given to them by\nAssange, which protected the unredacted trove of documents. You can\u2019t make this\nstuff up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harding, who was The Guardian\u2019s Moscow correspondent from\n2007-2011 until his visa was cancelled, also wrote the book Mafia State<\/em>… which lays the blame for\nhis expulsion squarely at the feet of Putin. Plus he wrote Shadow State<\/em>, which accuses Putin and Russia of all sorts of high crimes\nand misdemeanors: \u201cNo terrorist group has deployed a nerve agent in a civilian\narea or used a radioactive mini-bomb in London. The Kremlin has done both.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not hard to understand why anyone would write books\ncritical of Putin \u2013 the only difference between Putin and Trump, apart from\nintellect, is the level of instability. So it\u2019s entirely possible that Harding has\ngot a lot more right on this issue than he\u2019s got wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But when you get something like the Manafort story so spectacularly wrong, and then you refuse to acknowledge or correct it\u2026 well, you surrender the right to be believed in future stories. Put simply, you\u2019re hopelessly compromised at a depth that is matched only by The Guardian\u2019s vicious betrayal and ongoing character assassination of Julian Assange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By way of declaration, I’m a paid subscriber to Guardian Australia. I think by far they’re the best (and most ethical) mainstream media organisation in the country. As for their British arm… we all make errors, New Matilda included. But it’s impossible to trust a media source that pretends otherwise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for Putin, if he did authorise an operation to sow chaos in the US, I do wonder how hard Russian intelligence had to work to achieve it, and how much credit they might take in achieving it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure, 70 million people voted for Donald Trump, but 73 million of them voted for Hillary Clinton. Either way, US voters were always going to get the government they deserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DON’T MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n

The post Guardian\u2019s Putin Scoop Is Trumped By A History Of Bluff And Vicious Blunder<\/a> appeared first on New Matilda<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

This post was originally published on New Matilda<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The only thing bigger than the news out of Russia this morning that leaked documents reveal Vladimir Putin personally authorised an operation to assist Donald Trump into the White House in 2016 is the caveat that comes with the story. And by caveat, I mean it may or may not be true. In case you […]<\/p>\n

The post Guardian\u2019s Putin Scoop Is Trumped By A History Of Bluff And Vicious Blunder<\/a> appeared first on New Matilda<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1258,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1969,3267,1972],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240597"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1258"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240597"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240597\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":278863,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240597\/revisions\/278863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}