Home » Infowars: Stone Says Corsi Was Working For Mueller

Infowars: Stone Says Corsi Was Working For Mueller

by Domain Admin

In recent weeks, Dr. Jerry Corsi has done a virtual media offense by blasting Special Counsel Robert Mueller for attempting to pressure into repeating things under oath that he says are not true.

Before you decide that Corsi is a hero you should be well aware of the fact that the good doctor was prepared to bear false witness against others in the Trump orbit if he thought it would save his own skin.

For example, the assertion made by Dr. Corsi in a number of interviews that he told me that Podesta‘s emails had been stolen prior to their publication is false and there is no evidence to support it.

Corsi said on Tucker Carlson Tonight he had told “many people” and also said on ABC with George Stephanopoulos that he “told everyone he knew” Who is he referring to? Not me. My August 21, 2016 tweet regarding “Podesta’s time in the barrel” was based on a conversation with Dr. Corsi just prior to August 21st in which he pointed out various public sources documenting the Podesta’s extensive business dealings in both Ukraine and Russia.

My testimony, in this regard to the House Intelligence Committee which is included in my prepared statement which was submitted under oath is entirely accurate and truthful.

Any assertion to the contrary by members of the committee hiding behind their Congressional immunity from lawsuit is false and defamatory.

These included a piece by Peter Schweitzer “From Russia with Money” in the New York Post on July 31st, as well as a piece by Schweitzer in Breitbart on August 14 regarding Tony Podesta’s representation of the same Ukrainian Political part as Paul Manafort, and the Panama Papers published in April 2016. I asked him to supply a memo summarizing the various public sources – which he suggested I look up – and he agreed.

He supplied this memo on or around August 31st, and I sent it to a reporter for a New York-based Newspaper on a background basis. He assertion that this memo was some kind of “cover up” defies all logic.

My tweet was not the slightest bit controversial until six weeks later when WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails. There was no social media chatter about it and no media coverage.

Since, as I said, I had no knowledge the Podesta‘s emails had been stolen and most certainly never received a copy of them from anyone, what exactly would I be covering up? And how would I know on August 31st that I would need a “public relations cover-up” as Corsi put it.

My tweet was about the Podesta’s business dealings in gas, aluminum, uranium, and banking in Russia and I didn’t know John Podesta’s e-mail had been obtained by WikiLeaks so no cover-up was required.

I believe this false narrative was suggested to Corsi by the Special Counsel.

Corsi admitted in an interview with WJ LA that he balked only when they told him he would have to plead guilty to supplying me with Podesta’s emails, which of course, he did not.

Every politico and every political reporter in the country was interested in the subject of the Clinton-related material Assange told CNN he had in June 2016 and again teased on FOX in August.

I did twice suggest that Corsi try to find out what Wikileaks had. I do not believe legitimate political inquiry violates the law.

Corsi has steadfastly maintained that he had no contacts whatsoever with WikiLeaks or Julian Assange and I believe that to be the case.

So the recent claim by Adam Schiff that “the contacts of Roger Stone’s associates to WikiLeaks are more extensive then he told the Committee“ is the latest in a series of bald-faced lies by the Congressman from Burbank.

Corsi’s predictions in an e-mail to me on August 2nd that Assange would have major data dumps in the following weeks in August were incorrect. His statement the Podesta’s “would have to be exposed” makes no reference to John Podesta’s purloined e-mails and appears to be based on information that was entirely public but had gotten little media attention.

As I said on ABC with George Stephapolous, I believe the Special Counsel has mischaracterized this e-mail in their generic description of it.

Additionally, Corsi has said that he told the Special Counsel that I knew about the NBC/Billy Bush tape in advance and directed him to contact Assange to change the timing of his October data dump to distract public attention from the NBC story. This is a total fabrication without a scintilla of proof or evidence.

While telephone records show I did speak to Corsi that day I spoke to him on a regular basis throughout 2016. I learned about the NBC story when everybody else in America did, not before.

I identified Randy Credico, a New York-based radio talk show host, as the source who told me about the significance of the coming WikiLeaks disclosures and that they would come in October.

Credico told me that his source was a lawyer who worked for WikiLeaks.

Although Mr. Credico has denied this with MSNBC giving him a forum, I released over 30 of pages of text messages weeks ago which prove indisputably that all this is accurate.

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the Associated Press have all reported Credico’s denials but none have reported the text messages proving yet again that my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in this regard was accurate and truthful.

The report that I boasted about being “in communication with Assange” is never coupled with my immediate clarification on the record within hours that I was referring to Credico’s back-channel contact whose role in that regard is proven in the aforementioned text messages.

While we are at it, let’s dispose of another endlessly recycled claim against me.

My 24-word exchange with Guccifer 2.0 came weeks after WikiLeaks had already published the Clinton material and I released the full text. Based on the timing, actual content and context of the exchange is innocuous and proves nothing, particularly collusion or collaboration in the release of material that had already been made public and was never mentioned or discussed.

Let me reiterate that I never received allegedly hacked or allegedly stolen emails ultimately published by WikiLeaks from WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Jerry Corsi or anyone else.

I had no advance notice of the source or content of the material published by Wikileaks. There simply is no evidence or witnesses who can honestly testify to the contrary.

I neither discussed the matter with candidate Trump at anytime. Proof that I spoke to Trump on the telephone does not constitute proof that Wikileaks was the topic of the conversation despite the best efforts of the Washington Post to insinuate otherwise.

Bottom line is the Democrats in Congress or the special counsel has any evidence whatsoever of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration of coordination on my part so now the witch hunt has devolved to hairsplitting word games and gotcha questions designed to create a perjury trap.

You may also like

Leave a Comment