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.

READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate Files

SUPPORT 21WIRE – SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV