The Roger Stone – Wikileaks – Russia Hoax 54


As ever, the Guardian wins the prize for the most tendentious reporting of Roger Stone’s conviction. This is not quite on the scale of its massive front page lie that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. But it is a lie with precisely the same intent, to deceive the public into believing there were links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. There were no such links.

The headline “Roger Stone: Trump Adviser Found Guilty On All Charges in Trump Hacking Case” is deliberately designed to make you believe a court has found Stone was involved in “Wikileaks hacking”. In fact this is the precise opposite of the truth. Stone was found guilty of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee by claiming to have links to Wikileaks when in fact he had none. And of threatening Randy Credico to make Credico say there were such links, when there were not.

It is also worth noting the trial was nothing to do with “hacking” and no hacking was alleged or proven. Wikileaks does not do hacking, it does “leaks”. The clue is in the name. The DNC emails were not hacked. The Guardian is fitting this utterly extraneous element into its headline to continue the ludicrous myth that the Clinton campaign was “Hacked” by “the Russians”.

It is worth noting that not one of those convicted of charges arising from or in connection with the Mueller investigation – Manafort, Papadopolous, Stone – has been convicted of anything to do with Wikileaks, with anything to do with Russia or with the original thesis of the enquiry.

Astonishingly, in the case of Stone, he has been convicted of saying that the Mueller nonsense is true, and he was a Trump/Wikileaks go-between, when he was not. Yet despite the disastrous collapse of the Mueller Report, and despite the absolutely devastating judicial ruling that there was no evidence worthy even of consideration in court that Russiagate had ever happened, the Guardian and the neo-con media in the USA (inc. CNN, Washington Post, New York Times) continue to serve up an endless diet of lies to the public.

Randy Credico was the chief witness for the prosecution against Roger Stone. That’s for the prosecution, not the defence. This is the state’s key evidence against Stone. And Credico is absolutely plain that Stone had no link to Wikileaks. The transcript of my exclusive interview with Randy has now been prepared (thanks to Sam and Jon) and follows here.

I spoke to Randy yesterday to clarify one point. The first conversation Randy ever had with Julian Assange was on 25 August 2016 and it was on-air on Randy’s radio show. There was no private talk off-air around the show. That was Randy’s only contact of any kind with Julian Assange before the 2016 election. His next contact with him, also an on-air interview, was not until Spring 2017, well after the election. He could not have been in any sense a channel to Wikileaks.

Here is the unedited interview from 10 November:

RC: Hello.
CM: Hello there, Randy. Hello, can you hear me OK?
RC: Yes, perfectly.
CM: Yeah. I’m good, I’m very good indeed. OK, let’s do it like this, shall we, it seems …
RC: Now listen, before you start, you can ask me anything you want, and this is the only interview I’m going to do. I’ll be in town with—like, all day long—with people asking me to talk about this and I just want to get it out of the way and move on. All right?
CM: No, I quite understand. And that’s very sensible. Now, let’s start then … let’s start … before we get into the substance, let’s start then with some of the atmospherics. How did it feel to you, you know, to be you … to be Randy walking into that courtroom?
RC: Well, you know, when I, when I … first of all, for the last eight months I knew this was eventually going to happen. So I’ve been on needles and pins, a lot of anxiety that … Wait a second … Hold on, hold on … can you start and do that again?
[aside] Bye, everybody. … I’m doing an interview with somebody here.
Hi, Craig. Hi, Craig.
CM: Yep. Yep. I’m here.
RC: Hello. All right. Start going. Start … start again.
CM: OK. Before we get into the substance, Randy, let’s talk about the atmospherics. How did it feel to be you? How did it feel to be Randy Credico walking into that courtroom?
RC: Well, you know, all of my life … I got into show business when I was 18 years old and I really was pursuing fame and notoriety and, you know, I finally got it, and this is “be careful what you wish for”—because this is certainly not something that I was relishing. For the past eight months, when Mr Stone was indicted, I have been suffering from heavy anxiety, having to appear as a witness under subpoena. And then when it finally happened, eight months went by quickly, and I got to tell you something, going into that courtroom, and anticipating it the previous night in which I couldn’t sleep was not a very comforting feeling. I walked in and, you know, it wasn’t the traditional way where you walk in from the back. You had to walk through the very front of the courthouse, past the defendant, past his family, past his friends, past his supporters, and then get on that witness stand right next to the jury, and begin answering questions. So after a while I was OK with it, but I knew it was going to be a long session; I knew I was going to have to come back the next day and continue and then I was going to have to go through the cross-examination. So it was just nothing but anxiety going in, and there was some relief when it was over but it was a different kind of a feeling because I felt bad for the defendant at the end of the testimony.
CM: Yeah, no, I’m sure you did. Did you catch his eye at any slight stage while you were … while you were talking?
RC: Yeah. You know, I tried not to. I didn’t think that was fair, so I did look at him. He was very morose looking, very sullen looking … and, you know, but for the grace of God, there goes I. I could’ve been in that seat, in that situation at some point in my lifetime, and the weight of the federal government with the vast resources in a case like that, and the defendant, he had … he had a lot of attorneys, but I didn’t think they were … they were really sufficient. These were not great barristers, you know what I mean? They were not good. And I found out they weren’t really that good because I had known earlier the way they were cross-examining previous witnesses that they just weren’t up to the job.
So, you know, you go in there and you’re under a lot of stress, and you’ve got to tell the truth and at the same time the truth is going to hurt the guy who’s sitting there … you know, just 25 or 30 feet away from you, and it could put him in prison. I mean—who wants to be in that position? All of my life, I have worked to get people out of prison. I’m a prison reformer. I’ve extricated people out of prison through clemency and changes of laws in the State of New York. And other activism that I have done like in Texas, I got 46 people out of prison. So this was a very bizarre, ironic situation that I was in at that particular point.
So yes, I caught his eye; I did catch his eye. You know, it’s such loose strings—it’s someone that you’ve known. I’ve known the guy for 17 years. And people say “How were you ever friends with this guy? You know, you’re an extreme left-winger, the guy is an extreme right-winger”. Well, I have no regrets meeting him, because I met him in 2002, after I had been working 5 years, visiting prisons, organizing families of prisoners who were subjected to New York’s racist and draconian Rockefeller drug laws. They were called the Mothers of the New York Disappeared. I was working with him, organizing, visiting their loved ones in prison, and we were moving forward to getting some substantial change in 2002, but we were at loggerheads with the government. So because Roger Stone was running the campaign of a third party candidate—a billionaire, a real maverick individual, who had some great ads that I saw—I went to Mr Stone because the Democrats and the Republicans in the race were not addressing the issue. Mr Stone actually not only agreed with my position there, but he spent … had his candidate spend … millions of dollars doing ads to repeal New York’s racist Rockefeller drug laws. And that was a very key moment in the historical run of this movement. Within a year and a half, the laws had changed, and each year there was major building blocks. We got the public to support us; we were getting politicians to support us. In 2002, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer—our two Democratic Senators—were not on board. And so, this guy Tom Golisano was on board and he did rallies with these families, he put them on television, and he, like I said, spent millions of dollars on ads. And if it weren’t for Roger Stone, that wouldn’t have happened. And so because of that within a year and a half, these families that I had worked with, there was retroactivity when the laws were changed within a year and a half, and that was a key component. And Mr Golisano stayed with it for another year, he continued to work with us.
So, something like that. Even though Mr Stone had screwed me over, had done some very nasty things over the next 17 years, there was still that soft spot for him because, when I look at those families and I remember their faces when they get reunited with their loved ones—he played a role in that.
So that’s the dilemma I was facing when I was on that witness stand. I was an aggrieved person. This could’ve been done, by the way, in a civil court, you know, my grievance against Mr Stone because, for me—for me—my position was I was kind of smeared by being associated with the Trump campaign with these bogus allegations of being the back channel to Wikileaks—which we’ll get into. There was never any back channel to Wikileaks—that was all hocus pocus! So, answering your question, it was … it was a very bizarre, uncomfortable experience undergoing those {inaudible} in that highly publicized and media-covered circus that was going on. Not a circus, but whatever was going on there, it was something that I would not want to go through again. And, look, I’ve performed in front of a million different audiences; I’ve worked strip joints when I was in air force bases; I’ve done vigils, rallies; I’ve worked the worst toilets in the room over a 45 year period in show business, but I still wasn’t prepared for that kind of atmosphere.
CM: Yes, I can imagine. Is it a fair characterisation to say that you, Randy, you’re on the libertarian left of politics, whereas Roger’s on the libertarian right, and you both met because there were some issues such as drug decriminalization on which you agree and on which he then did good work in decriminalizing communities in New York. Is that the basic analysis?
RC: Yes, I would say I once ran on the Libertarian party line in 2010. A lot of their positions I don’t agree with … but I’m on the left, he’s a libertarian right. He’s not like one of these people—when I met him he was not the ideologue that he was portrayed to be in the media in 2002—a far right Jesse Helms type or a far right John Ashcroft type. He was a libertarian, he smoked pot; you know, we had the same views on music. He actually was advocating for the pardon of Marcus Garvey, who was framed, who was a leader of Black Nationalism in the 20s, on these bogus mail fraud charges. So, you know, he’s kind of a sphinx, you know, politically. He’s not, like I said, a hard-core right-winger. He was not for the war in Iraq back in 2003. So, you know, I don’t even know what the right and the left is sometimes. You know, I really don’t know what that means. I mean Tony Blair’s supposed to be a Labour guy, but he’s as bad as George Bush is, and always has been. So does he really support Labour, is he a leftist? No. So, you know, these labels are a little confusing to me. But like I said, Stone—you know—he’s a showman. He’s a showman; he’s an exhibitionist. That’s what got him in trouble here. The poor guy is … you know, he’s a megalomaniacal showman. Just like I am. I’m in show business, why? Because I’m like him—I like to get laughs, and I want to be recognised. That’s him.
I said he’d done a lot of bad things to me but politically we were, you know, we coincided on a few major issues, and one of them was drug law reform in the State of New York. Now, mind you, 97% of the people that were subjected to the Rockefeller drug laws in the State of New York were black and Latino. And still are—they have been modified, not completely changed. But, you know, they were subjected to harsh punishment; they were getting 15 years to life. I know one kid by the name of Terence Stevens, paralysed from the neck down—from the neck down—with muscular dystrophy, and that guy was doing all of this time for possession on a bus! They ascribed it to him for possession! And he had done 10 years in prison, in the medical ward of a real dank prison—it was called Green Haven—for possession. And that was not like the exception to the rule. There were thousands of people in similar circumstances that were there that were just mules, or addicts that were doing this time—and Stone actually was very sympathetic to it. It wasn’t like it was a—you know, what would you call it—flash in the pan type of a push. He continued afterwards, he even wrote some op-ed pieces; but, like I said, he did some bad things to me over the years, but I’m a good natured guy, and I overlooked it. I let him get away with it.
CM: The astonishing thing about all this is … is that it all comes out of the Mueller inquiry, and the so-called Russiagate scandal, and yet none of these charges relate to Russia. And let’s be quite plain, to the best of your knowledge and belief—or to the best of your knowledge anyway—Roger Stone has no link to the Russian government that we’re aware of, and he certainly has no link to Wikileaks that we’re aware of. Is that your understanding?
RC: Well, actually what he had was … Look … Roger Stone … Here’s what happened. In 2015, Trump hired him. He lasted one month. Why? Because every time he did an interview it was more about him than it was about Trump; and Trump got frustrated with him and dumped him. And he may have given Trump advice here and there because, you know, he was the one who got Trump to run 30 years earlier; it was his idea, he kept pushing Trump. So he was kind of unceremoniously kicked out of the Trump camp.
Flash forward to 2016, he’s kind of hanging around the Trump campaign, he comes up with one of these Super PACs. And so he’s trying to ingratiate himself back into the Trump orbit there. And what he did was he, like, looks at Wikileaks and he sees what’s going on with Wikileaks, and he’s trying to get information. He’s going to guys like Jerome Corsi. You know, Jerome Corsi is a complete lunatic, you know, beyond the pale of conspiracy freaks … and he got hoodwinked by that guy. And this is my estimation, this is my analysis. He gets hoodwinked into thinking that he’s got a back channel. Right.
So he is showing, you know … First of all, the whole idea of a back channel is ridiculous. Julian Assange does not telegraph what he’s going to put out. He never has. He doesn’t compromise his sources and he always puts out that his whole M.O. is the element of surprise. So there was no reason for him to give it to Roger Stone, of the kind of preview of what he was doing. Why would he do that? When everything that he was doing, he was doing carefully, and he was selecting the time and then he’d put it out. There was no reason for him to give anything to Stone. No, Stone was playing the role of someone that had the inside information from Assange. Now, you know Assange, he’s very careful. He’s not going to … if he wanted to he would just give it directly to Trump, you know, but he didn’t. He never did. He didn’t need to go through Stone. But Stone was pretending that he had some kind of access to Wikileaks, and he was selling that to the Trump campaign—that he was able to get something in advance, he knew what it was. And so they didn’t think they were going to win, and they were looking for Hail Marys and this was one of them, and they brought him into the orbit and Stone was thinking that whatever this guy Corsi was giving him was accurate, possibly, and then … then me. All right? So, there was nothing there.
And then, the following month, in August 25th, after Stone had said a few weeks previously that he had direct contact with Assange, and he modelled at that to get a back channel. I had never met Assange, never had any conversation with Assange. In fact, I never ever even met him until the following year. So, on August 25th, through my friend, through someone then that worked with Assange got him on my radio show … on August 25th. And so, I was … it was a big fish for me. I had just gone from one day a week with my show to three days a week, and two of those days were prime time—5 o’clock drive time—and I let Stone know that I had Assange on my show. He didn’t even respond to that. I let him know. So I was kind of one-upping him. And Assange was on the show—we even talked about it: “Do you have a back channel with Roger … ?” And he laughed at it. You know, Stone was on my show on the twenty … two days previously … and I asked him about it, and he said that he had a back channel and he really couldn’t disclose what it was. And then Assange was on. So there was no back channel there, with me.
I went to London a few weeks later. I went to London to see a fellow by the name of Barry Crimmins, who is a left wing comedian, who I had known for 30 years; and we were in London together performing there back in 1986. It was the 30 year anniversary. He was working at the Leicester Square Comedy Club in London. And somebody underwrote my trip to see him. Three days. I hung out with him for three days.
I also had a letter from the General Manager from the station to give to Julian Assange, or someone that works with Julian Assange, with a proposal that he do a radio show out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, with an IFB, and do it over the Pacifica network, and it would be his show. But at that time remember in September he was preparing obviously putting stuff together, collating it, or whatever, and putting it together, for the eventual day that he was trying to put it out, which was on October 7th. Now, the date that he put it out they say it was to coincide with the Access Hollywood tape. Now, anyone, talk to Stefania Maurizi, she will tell you that they were planning to put that out a day or two earlier on the 7th. That was the day they were going to put it out. She was the one that knew, she never told anybody, but she did afterwards. And last year she said she knew they were going to put something out on the 7th, because she worked with Assange. She was one of the few journalists that he trusted, and rightly so.
But I never got in to see him. They didn’t, they didn’t see me, because Stone found out on the 27th, he knew that I was flying to London to see my friend Barry Crimmins, so … and possibly see Assange. He wanted me to find out from Assange, because he put somebody on my radio show—Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President—he put him on my show on the 9th of September, and I owed him a favour and the favour was to find out if this email from Hillary Clinton to somebody existed regarding the situation in … in Libya, and sabotaging the peace talks with Gaddafi. Well, I never did that, I never gave it to Assange. I wouldn’t dare ask him.
I’ve been in that Embassy three times since, after that year 2017 when I spent some time with you and John Pilger in London and Edinburgh. That’s when I saw him. I never once asked him about his business. I didn’t want to know. I didn’t ask him how they did things … nothing. The stuff was so general. We talked about dogs, we talked about him running for Senate, and the Green Party, we talked about food. We talked about general things. And that was it. I never once saw … There was no way I was going to ask him to confirm if this email existed. In fact, I told Stone that if it existed, it would be on the Wikileaks website.
All right, so that happens; that happens, and nothing happens. I did say, I did predict, and I put it on Facebook after standing outside that Embassy on the 29th, I dropped the letter off. There was a guy from either MI6, MI5, or a metropolitan police department outside that building with a headphone on, or an earplug, and he was listening: you could tell, these guys are so obvious. And I dropped the letter off. I was in for less than 20 seconds. I knocked on the door on the left; a hand came out; I dropped the letter off from the station, and left; I went through Harrods and I was followed. So I extrapolated from that, that something must be coming up. I put it on Facebook: “Here’s a picture of me, look at this guy behind me. I got a feeling the guy inside’s gonna drop something this week.”
Two days later I said the same thing to Stone. So now, he’s going to use me as—well, I mean, well, he has to—as the back channel. Supposedly he had a back channel for months. But the whole thing was ridiculous: I mean, there was no back channel; there never was a back channel. This was Stone just blowing himself up as, you know, as an important person to impress. As you said yesterday in your tweet, that he was looking to make money, and he did, he did ask the family for some money when he said that this was coming out, and that in fact did justify his luck that it came out on the 7th, and they thought that Stone had the inside information; he had no inside information. All right, so that’s where we were back … that’s where we are back then, up until October first or second or third. So I had no back channel. I had no information; Stone had no information—but he continued to sell himself as a person that did.
And then the, then the … I think that Correa shut down this internet for a while after he got pressure from John Kerry at that meeting in Bogota of the OAS [Organization of American States]. And so I said to Stone at a dinner, the only time I saw him in 2016 was at a dinner on October 12th or 13th, and I told him that, that was information that I got from about 20 people that there was pressure—it was even in the paper. So that was it. So now we go a year later, Stone testifies. Are you with me there, Craig?
CM: Yes, I am with you.
RC: OK. Do you want to ask a question, or should I continue?
CM: No, you carry on. Go with the flow.
RC: I shall. You go forward. The following year, Stone testifies, he testifies to confirm, not to Mueller, but the House Intel Committee—they had opened up an investigation right after this whole Russia stuff—and I was totally against it. I thought the whole thing was a ridiculous thing, chasing down you know Russians being behind it. Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Julian Assange did not send a map to the Clinton campaign of every school in Michigan and Wisconsin … all right. So she lost. She was a horrible campaign….
I was a big Bernie person. I was supporting … I did a four day howler marathon for Bernie to get out to vote just prior on the day before the New York primaries. So I was still pissed off at Hillary because she had taken it away from Bernie. Her and her cohorts at the DNC had taken it away from Bernie. And if Bernie had won that primary, had won that nomination, he would have beaten Trump … I believe. But Hillary …
CM. Yeah, I know. There’s a lot of polling evidence that says that, I think.
RC: Yes, I think, I think … I really do think that Bernie would have won that election. So I was really furious! I was furious that he was out of it. I’m still furious. I ended up voting for Jill Stein that day. And I went to Jill Stein’s party on November 8th 2016. I think I had you on the show with Jill Stein just prior to that. And I had her on the show that day and I went to her party and Trump won, and I was very depressed about that … not that I supported Hillary, I mean she didn’t have any chance at all so it’s fine …
Now going forth, let me get back to 2017. He voluntarily—voluntarily—goes before the House Intel Committee. They didn’t subpoena him, they didn’t ask him to show up but he voluntarily goes up and it’s behind closed doors. Simultaneously he releases a 47-page screed that he’s about to read on YouTube, he reads it on YouTube, and then his opening statement. Forty-seven pages he reads to them chiding the whole process and slamming Schiff and everybody, putting this whole Russiagate thing out there. And then at the end they ask him if he had a back channel, and he says “Yes, it’s a journalist but I’m not supposed to say who it is”.
Now, the next day, I’m trying to reach him. I’m thinking he’s going to say that I was now, because I had sent him those text messages, he’s gonna say …. And then he sends me a text message saying “Look, just go along with this, don’t worry about it. You’ll get a lot of press out of this. They’re not going to believe you, Credico; they’re going to believe me.” So, look he was covering up his attempts; he had no connection. And by the way, this is not helping Julian Assange out, having Roger Stone and Trump and all these people out there saying that they’re connected to Wikileaks. This is not helping his cause—all right—because Roger Stone is radioactive. Julian Assange knows that he’s radioactive. He doesn’t hate Stone; he finds him to be some kind of showman, you know, an exhibitionist; but he had nothing … he’s smart enough to know that you don’t go there, and he didn’t go there. But, so … now, he’s got himself in a bind here: he has said he’s got a back channel, he’s gloating about it, you know, he’s showboating … and a few days later, he lets me know that he’s gonna name me as the back channel. And that’s gonna go public! He said, “Look nobody’s gonna believe you, Credico. And better that, uh … better that I name you than go to jail.” So he doesn’t mention this guy Corsi, who was the back channel that wasn’t the back channel.
CM: OK. Can you just hang on a second, Randy? He said “better he names you than go to jail”. What was he thinking: that having claimed to have a back channel to the committee, he had to try to substantiate it or he’d be in trouble for lying? Or was there was some other risk of jail?
RC: If he says … If he says that they … He didn’t even get a subpoena! In other words, they didn’t subpoena him. Adam Schiff said, “We’d like to know who that back channel is.” And you have to get a full vote on the committee to get a subpoena. Without even getting a subpoena, he went and named me. I said “Well, why are you naming me?”. He says “Why should I go to jail for you?”. Now this is a cocked hat situation for me at that particular point. You know, here I’m being named for something I didn’t do, but he can circumstantially say that I did, because I had told him that I had a connection with Assange on my show: Margaret Ratner Kunstler. You know, but she …. And that was it. When I asked her to get him on the show, she was furious that I even asked her. So, you know, I had a show for a year prior to that and I never asked her. I did not want to get involved and bring her into this. And so I gotta get my own guests. But now I had it three days a week, and so I asked her gingerly and she did get him on the show. But by telling him that, putting that name out, now he’s got her name. Right?
And now I told him on October 1st that something’s coming out which I had already announced, extrapolating on public comments by Assange saying that something is coming out; I think Sarah Harrison may have said that something was coming out; everyone knew that something was coming out. And so since I never was able to get that thing, and never tried, on the Libyan connection with Hillary Clinton—and … what’s his name? … Gaddafi—I felt obligated to get something. And by the way, this is coming from the Heathrow Airport, where I was at the duty free bar there, and I was getting free drinks, because I got a couple of bottles there, and it’s the only duty free store I’ve ever been in where they’ve got like three or four portable bars where you could drink. Instead of spending money at the bar, you know, twelve pounds per ale, I was getting all of these different booze samples that they had and then I was buying a couple. And so when I’m waiting around at the gate, you know, I’m just texting him too along with other people “Something’s coming out”. I’m gonna go back to 2017. So he’s going to name me, he says he’s gonna name me, and just to go along with it. And he’ll go to jail … I don’t know how he could go to jail by not answering the subpoena, or not giving up the name. He could always just take the Fifth Amendment. He could, like I did later on; I took the Fifth Amendment. For a variety of reasons I took the Fifth Amendment. So now he’s put me in a jam … all right, he names me, he names me as a back channel.
And there’s a ton of papers, a ton of stories out there in the newspapers and the electronic media that Randy Credico’s the back channel. Now everybody on the centre left hates me. People connected to the Clinton people think that I helped Donald Trump win, I facilitated it, and I got myself in a big jam right there. Now what do I do? Do I go up there, when I get the letter from the House Intel Committee, and contradict Roger Stone? If I do, then he’s in trouble legally and then he could go to jail for perjury. So I had to think about that. Even though he put my reputation on the line there I feel like … Look, people lie to Congress all the time, to Congressional committees; and, you know, it leads to wars; it leads to mass surveillance; it leads to … appointments to the Supreme Court federal bench. And so those are big lies that are never investigated and they get away with it. So his was a small lie except for it was about me though; that was the only problem. I don’t mind that he lied to Congress, because everybody lies to Congress.
CM: Yeah, I must say to that point I mean he hadn’t done anything. He’d boasted a bit; he’d tried to work an angle by claiming he had a contact he didn’t have; he’d then maintained that by telling the Intelligence Committee that he had a contact he didn’t have. But then, that’s a fairly harmless lie.
RC: You … you … you know what it is? It’s a fender bender. But it turned out to be a 21 trailer tractor pile-up. It was a fender bender. It was no big thing to tell them that. I kind of laughed at his 47-page statement. It was kind of entertaining. You know, he was putting on a show there. But when he put me in there …. Look, if it was anybody else, it’s fine. And it’s not like it was a major transgression to say that he had a back channel that he didn’t have. Right? That’s not a major transgression. When you lie about weapons of mass destruction—that is something that cost millions of lives, and people got away with that. People got away with lying to Congress about that, lately. You got guys who lie about not being spied on—there’s no domestic spying—that was a lie, they got away with that. All right? That’s the kind of stuff that affects them. This doesn’t affect, you know, anything. But he did lie to Congress, he did it five or six times, he kept lying; and there are five or six times that he lied in there and said that I had been providing him information from, like, early June all the way through October third or fourth or fifth. So … which is totally ridiculous, you know! And nobody else provided him with that, because Assange does not tip his mitt. You know what I mean?
So he was building himself up, ingratiating himself with the Trump campaign, which he had been disaffected from … thrown off the campaign. So he was clawing himself back on, and this was his way … and he was fishing around. Wikileaks had rebuffed him, told him “Stop saying you’re connected to us! All right? That’s not true.” They put that out there. They sent them a direct mail that “we had nothing to do with Roger Stone”. And all that was doing was hurting them, by saying that, you know, he was one of the most despised person in the US, whether it’s true or not the reasons why, but he’s a despised person in the US by a lot of people. And traditional right-wingers don’t like him, and the left doesn’t like him, because he’s a dirty trickster and he’s been connected … remember, he was connected to … with Mobutu, he helped out Mobutu do PR work; he helped out Marcos do PR work; Savimbi … did PR work for Savimbi; he was a big fan of Pinochet. So he doesn’t have a clean past. All right? He made a lot of money, made millions of dollars working with some of the most odious dictators in the 80s. And he and Manafort, and a few others, they had a PR firm and that’s who they worked for. All right? So let’s not say Roger Stone is an angel here. You don’t make money … maybe if this is the ghost of Lumumba, the ghost of Aquino, of Victor Jara, coming back to haunt Mr Stone. You know, but we just push that aside, we push that aside.
Getting back to Wikileaks: they rebuffed, they publicly said they did not have anything to do … and you know that was true: they did not. He did not have a back channel. He invented himself in, he insinuated himself into the Wikileaks orbit, as if he was like, you know, some part of it. And that wasn’t good for them, you know, because they were going to release that stuff.
Now Assange has material there. He’s got the material. Either he can not put it out there and possibly help out Hillary, or he could put it out there and help out … whatever it was, that wasn’t his decision. His decision as a journalist is: he’s got material and so his ethics as a journalist: you put it out there. You can’t hold back material. That’s the way he looked at it. And he put it out there. Because he had it. He got a big scoop there. And he had to put that out there. If he had a similar scoop on Trump, he would’ve put that out there. He does not compromise his ethics. He is a journalist, and he operates as a journalist in the best tradition.
CM: To move the story on now, though: next, Stone does get nasty and he gets nasty towards you because you won’t play along with his story and you won’t say you were a back channel when you weren’t, so he starts to threaten you.
RC: Well, here’s what happened. I went there back to London—and I don’t think I saw you this time around, I think there in November, and I knew I put it out, and I was covering for Pacifica the case of … the case that Stefania Maurizi had against the Crown Prosecutor Services over the emails that were suppressed by them, between them and the Swedish Prosecutor. So I went to that proceeding and … {inaudible} … and spent three or four days in London. I got to see Julian a couple of times and, you know, that was the last time I saw him, by the way. But I was still … I didn’t know what to do at that particular time.
I got the subpoena when I got back and I really thought that they were going to ask me about my communications with Assange, the House Intel Committee. So that was one of the reasons that I said, “Well, here I can go and use my First Amendment rights”, and my lawyer said “No, you can’t; you can use your Fifth Amendment rights.” And then, you know, Stone was hanging over my head that he was going to bring in Mrs Kunstler, and drag her through this. And, you know, he and I both come from Italian-American families and it’s chauvinistic but we don’t drag the women into it; that’s a tradition—you don’t bring the women into the mud here. But he was going to do that, he was going to bring Mrs Kunstler’s name into to it. She’s this woman with a pristine past; she’s done nothing. Her husband was the greatest civil rights attorney; he liked the fanfare, he got a lot of publicity, but he did incredible work. She did incredible work throughout her life, and she did it quietly. She does not like the trash …. She’s lived this humble life, and just done all of the grunt work legally, and I did not want to drag her through this, this entire quagmire. I didn’t want her name, and the fact I even broached her name to Stone, that was … I was an asshole for doing it. And for Stone to hang that over my head, that was one of the reasons why I took the Fifth Amendment when I did … and to the very end I had no idea what I was going to do. I was trying to do this—do you remember the Wallendas, you know, the tightrope specialists? I was trying to walk this line there where I could say I wasn’t the guy, wasn’t the back channel, without pissing off Stone, and to do that, say that I wasn’t the back channel, but like I said, without giving them information, without going before the Committee. But if I … the thing is once I took the Fifth Amendment, everyone assumed that I was a back channel and was helping out Stone. That’s just the way people think.
And then, the … I was working for this millionaire guy who was going to run for Governor. I was working throughout 2018; I had, like, a one year contract. He decided … he’s such a nice guy, rather than … rather than fire me, he decided to drop out of the race. OK, I worked with him for the previous year, OK, because he was a big shot with the liberal Democrats—he was like probably a billionaire—and he was a big finance guy who just couldn’t be seen at that point with me because I was now radioactive being associated with Stone, but I played it that way—I did take the Fifth Amendment but, like I said, people just assumed, and I started doing television shows, trying to explain myself; I couldn’t explain myself. And then I finally said … and he was getting upset that I was even out there, contradicting, gainsaying what he had put out there in front of the House Intel Committee. And why? Why was he upset? Because he didn’t want it to get out that he had been calling up Trump with this bogus information that he had gotten from this guy Corsi and somebody else. He had been calling up Trump, he had been calling the family, he had been calling up everybody, to get back in there, weasel his way back in there with this back channel claim that he didn’t have. And so he didn’t want to get that to be exposed. He got so furious with me that he started saying nasty ….
Now, I understand: he’s in a bad situation right now. He’s in a bad situation: he lied to Congress! Now he’s saying things about me, and he’s, like, saying nasty … now, look, going up to the … before I took the Fifth, he was sending me text messages to take the Fifth and not to talk. All right? And he’s text messaging this … in broad daylight! You know, we live in an age of mass surveillance … why would you be doing that, text messaging someone: “Don’t talk. All right? If you talk, you do this, do that!” And … but, you know that’s not the reason why. The only reason, the main reason was that I was worried that she would be dragged into this, because he could somehow circumstantially, you know, say that this is the … and I didn’t know he had these prior discussions with other people.
So now we’re going through … getting back to 2018, and what … I’m in a quandary here: what do I do? Big dilemma. Do I come out? And I finally said, “Look, I wasn’t the guy; this is all a complete lie.” And then he started sending out some of the text messages and emails—the one about … {inaudible} …, and all of that—to make it look like I was … {inaudible} …, you know, a war—a public battle between the two of us. And thing is … is that I don’t know why he did that. He’s escalating it. He’s getting stories planted about my character … he’s smearing me, and then … he’s threatening me. But the threats I never took seriously. All right? If I took them seriously, I would gone to the police department—911, and would’ve called up 911—”Somebody had threatened … “. I never took those seriously. It was a guy that was desperate now; he was acting in a desperate way. And he didn’t know what to do. Look, I’ve seen … the guy is sending these things out at two o’clock in the morning … you know, the guy, you know, he gets toasted. All right? He’s not doing it on a sober level. He’s sending out some very nasty things. And so when I … I got so sick and tired of him saying these things about me publicly, that I took the private emails, and I said when … when they got so bad … the smear job had got so bad … it was what was called a ‘brushback pitch’. I gave them to somebody in the media and said “Here, here’s what he’s saying to me in these emails.” And then that’s what … that’s what dragged in the Mueller people when they saw them. I wish I had never put them out, but he escalated it, and I put it out; and the next thing you know, they show up; they’re looking for me, and I’m kind of laying low. I did a show at the …{inaudible} …, my first public performance, and they’re there … they’re there, and they asked me to cancel it; I wouldn’t testify, and then I got a subpoena a couple of months later, and I have … Mow, when you go before them, the first thing they tell you is you can say anything you want, you just can’t lie. All right?
CM: Yep?
RC: Are you there?
CM: Yeah, I’m with you.
RC: You can’t lie to them. You just can’t lie to them. So I sat there and I told them they had all of our emails, they had subpoenas, they had the text messages, and you know, Stone was … Stone put himself into that situation. You know, when they were doing this broad investigation with the Mueller people … these are the best lawyers that exist in the US prosecutors. So like, some top level attorneys and FBI people assigned to it. And they found everything, and so now, now I have to go before the Grand Jury. And in fact I went before the Grand Jury, and I had to answer “Yes” or “No”, and I had the … I was there with my book Sikunder Burnes, by the way, which everyone was interested in … if you recall?
CM: I do. I recall the photos very well.
RC: So now I go before them. Nothing’s happened and months go by and Stone starts dripping out more text messages that were recently found. These were text messages I didn’t have: 2016 and 2017. He selectively cherry-picked some messages, dropped them out there and so they want to know. They call me back into DC, I gotta go back to DC and go over hundreds of pages of text messages with Stone. And the next thing you know, the following January 25th, Stone had lied and he had threatened … you know, I didn’t take the threats seriously. Like I said, I would have said something to the authorities, you know. But, you know, he did put it out there and he did try to get me to change my testimony. So … you know, you gotta be careful, you can’t do things like that. And so he got arrested, and now you know, he gets arrested and now the onus is on me. I know that I’m gonna be … I looked at those charges, seven … he had seven charges and five of them were related to me.
I’m in a real box right now. I felt terrible. But eventually, hopefully, the guy pleads out or he gets a pardon or whatever. He didn’t. He didn’t get a pardon. In fact, he hasn’t pardoned any of the people connected to this. And you would think that this guy would have gotten a pardon. I felt terrible, like I said, about having to testify, but if I don’t testify then I’m in contempt and can spend two years in jail on contempt charges. Plus, they already had the goods there, they had the goods, they had the text messages, and Stone was … you know, indiscreet, putting those things out there. Can you imagine Assange putting something out there like that? Would you do something like that, in the open? You know that everyone can see your Gmail. If you’re a follower of Assange, you don’t put in things in Gmail, because it’s like graffiti on a train: it’s hard to get off, you can’t wash it off, it’s there forever. And so … so he never had a back channel, though. Stone never had a back channel.
CM: Don’t you think there’s a tremendous irony here, because the Mueller inquiry set out to prove Hillary Clinton’s claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC and had then conspired with the Trump campaign and Wikileaks to take the election from her, and they couldn’t find any of that because it’s nonsense: it’s just not true, so …
RC: He wasn’t charged.
CM: So they found …
RC: He wasn’t charged. I repeat, Julian Assange was not charged here.
CM: No, precisely. And they end up … they end up doing the opposite: they end up actually trying Roger Stone because he was claiming that that original thesis was true, in fact. You know, he was claiming to be a link between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, and fact there was no link between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks; so they end up taking someone to court for the opposite reason from what they tried to prove in the first place.
RC: Obviously, he did not have a back channel. Obviously, what he did was … he disrupted an investigation and threw everybody off. All right? So you step on toes when you do something like that. If he had just been hon… Look, all he had to do, Craig, for himself … all right, very easily … was go before that House Intel Committee, if they ever were even going to call him, and say “Look, I tried. I did not have a back channel. Nothing ever happened. You know, I was bluffing the Trump campaign … if he had just said that and just been honest …. He put himself in a bad spot all because of this narcissism or this megalomania, this need for attention. You know, the guy, like I said, is not everyone’s favourite character, and … you know …. Look, there was no back channel to Wikileaks, ever! You’re right, there was no back channel … I mean, that’s my opinion. I don’t see a back channel to Wikileaks. And I said that, that I don’t think … you know … if they have something they’re going to show at the rest of this trial. Maybe there was, but I didn’t see it. I don’t … so far, I don’t see anything. And why would Assange ever, ever, ever give up … you know, he doesn’t give up the source—A; and, B—he doesn’t tip what he … you know, tip his mitt, as it were. So that is where Stone got himself into trouble, with lying to Congress five times and then they couldn’t … and so the whole time they want me, you know, all … I got three subpoenas and Congressional committees—from the Senate, the House … two from the House judiciary, the Senate Intel—and I rebuffed … I said no to all of them. I didn’t want to get involved in that circus, that political circus between the Democrats and Republicans—I didn’t want to have anything to do with that. But from the Mueller people, they have the subpoena, and I was compelled, and … like I said there was nothing there that I did; but if people think that, you know, well maybe I was BS’ing Stone, you know, I was just trying to satisfy what … you know, the guy wanted something for the Gary Johnson … all because of this whole Gary Johnson, getting him on my show, and me trying to reciprocate it and I never did try. I’d never … He wanted me to get Assange on his show; that was the first request for getting Gary Johnson. I didn’t do that. So, look, this whole thing could have been avoided. All he had to do was, when he went in front of the Intel Committee, when he volunteered, to say that he didn’t have a back channel, that it was all BS, you know, that he was just bluffing, that he was trying to get in good with … you know … with the Trump campaign. So now, he’s facing … the biggest charge against Stone right now is guess what? Jury tampering, I mean, witness tampering. So the other things carry a couple of years; but the witness tampering carries 20 years, and I’m the witness that he tampered with! Now I told …. They did such a bad job, the defence attorneys yesterday. What he said was “Mr Stone … “. One charge was that he’d steal my dog! And I never took that seriously that he was gonna steal my dog. I volunteered, I said: “Stone likes dogs. Stone likes dogs, he’s got dogs, he loves dogs, he wasn’t gonna steal my dog”. I was never worried about him taking this dog of mine. All right? It was hyperbole of the highest order, and it was out of frustration, and probably juiced up on Martinis when he said it. I didn’t take it seriously, at all.
CM: And you were able to say that in the witness stand. That’s what you said, yeah?
RC: I said it. I literally witnessed … I said in the witness stand. You know, I can’t say that he didn’t try to get me to change my … to get me to take the Fifth Amendment. That was … He was one person that had advice. Everyone … I think I even asked you about it! I asked a hundred people what should I do—I had no idea! I’d never been in that situation before! Now what do I do? I knew what the cost was going to be: if I took the Fifth Amendment, people were going to wonder; and if I had not taken the Fifth Amendment, and testified, then Stone would have been charged, and he would have been guilty and possibly do some time in prison. So I was basically saving him then, and … Look, ironically he is now facing prison time.
CM: Yep. You did ask me. I advised you not to take the Fifth, I said you should go in there and tell, tell the full truth … was my advice.
RC: That’s right. I did ask you. I may have asked you on my show; I may have asked you by phone—but I remember you were the one of the few people that said “Don’t take the Fifth Amendment!” You were one of them. And a few others said the same thing: Ben Weiser said “Do not take the Fifth Amendment!” And Glenn Greenwald told me not to take the Fifth Amendment. So there were three people who told me … wise people told me not to take the Fifth Amendment. And lo and behold I did anyway, and all it did was create some problems. But Stone could have taken … that’s the thing, Stone could have taken the Fifth Amendment…. He could have done that and it would’ve been over with…. And now it’s dragged on, he’s put himself in harm’s way. You know, I did say that I wasn’t worried about this, but they didn’t ask me. The other threats about I’m gonna die … because there was a lot of things he said, but was I worried about that? No, I wasn’t worried that he was going to kill me! You know what I mean.
CM: The thing I take away from this is that you … plainly you forgive him for his bluster against you, which you never took that seriously in the first place, and I mean, I think it goes to your nature as the very kind and caring person you are, Randy: you’re more concerned now for Roger Stone … you know, you’re worried what’s going to happen to him, about him going down to jail, being in an awful situation. So despite everything, your main worry now is for him.
RC: I worry about that! I worry about the guy. Look, he’s 67 years old. He’s got a wife, he’s got friends, he’s got kids … you know, I don’t want to be the guy that’s responsible for him doing time in a US prison. US prisons are terrible … you know, that’s why, you know, we’re vying so hard to keep Julian from coming over here, and Lauri Love from coming over here, because of conditions of US prisons. That guy wouldn’t last a minute with a Nixon tattoo on his back, so I feel terrible that he put himself in this situation. Like I said, if his lawyer had asked me—his lawyer closed up, it was like “My God, this guy should have asked me some more questions … that I did not feel threatened by Stone personally.” You know what I mean? He made this threat, but I didn’t … I didn’t … I told him I’d never felt threatened by that. The thing is, that he had not emailed, telling me to take the Fifth, to stonewall all of this—he should have never done that! You know what I mean? I didn’t ask him for his advice on that. I asked people who were … legal people, people like yourself who know the legal system, what to do—and I got a mixed bag. At the end of the day, I ended up taking the Fifth Amendment. And, like I said, as bad as he’s been to me … I don’t want to see …. Look, jail is for people like Hannibal Lecter … people like … people like Rudolf Hess … and people like, you know … that commit the heinous crimes … people that get us into wars. Tony Blair, I’d like to see in prison. Pinochet, I’d like to see in prison … you know, before he died. Those are the kind of people that should be in prison—people that cause bodily harm, torture people—whoever tortured those loyal people in Uzbekistan … those are the people that should be in prison. But I am not … I had a father that did ten years in prison, OK? It ruined the kids … we all became hard-core alcoholics. You know, it was long before I was born. So I heard the horror stories of the prison that my father spent ten years in on the … on the … he was a male nurse on the tuberculosis ward. Ninety-nine percent of the people on that ward were black. All right? So he had an Italian … first generation, second generation Italian … that’s there, and you know they’re not good on race. My father was always good. That was the … that was what I took as a takeaway. But I always worked on prison reform because of I went through as a kid, listening to my father’s horror stories. So prison is not good for anybody. Now, Stone should do something like get probation or something. I don’t want to see the guy—at 67, 68 years of age—you know, the fact that he’s a broken man now, a broken-down man right now … he spent all this money. Look, I have a grievance against him—he has done some rotten things to me over the years; but, you know, forgiveness is a cardinal virtue, and I subscribe to having … you know, to forgive. I forgive. I forgive … and let it go. You know what I mean?
CM: Yes.
RC: The stuff that he did back in the 80s, that’s … he’ll have to deal with his maker on that … with those dictators … so he’ll have to deal with his … I don’t know how bad he is, what he did, I don’t know. But as far as me, I can forgive somebody. I don’t want to have resentment, I don’t want to carry resentment around. And I will be in a very bad spiritual way … a very bad spiritual way if in fact he goes to prison. It’s going to do a number on me to see that guy actually go into a maximum security prison, or any kind of prison. It’s not something that I want to see, personally. It’s not up to me … but believe me, it’s a lot of weight on my shoulders right now. And I don’t want to see anybody go to prison. It’s just not … it’s not the answer. Putting people in prison is not the answer. There has to be alternatives to incarceration. There are so many bad things that go on the world, and we spend a hundred thousand dollars here to put Roger Stone in prison. You know, it’s going to be a heavy burden for me to carry for the rest of my life, if he does go. And I, you know … I’m sorry that I’m in this …this … you know, I … right now, Assange is in a prison … and that kills me, every day that he’s in that prison. This bright … as you say, he’s the brightest person you’ve ever met. And I say, he’s the second brightest—you’re the brightest person I’ve ever met. But Assange is right behind you. And this brilliant individual is there, suffering. The people that put him through this should be in prison. The people that have been … the people on the CPS that conspired to put him there … and the politicians and the judges that put him there. Remember, when Garibaldi liberated San Stefano prison in 1860, you see, the first thing he said to one of the inmates was “Show me the judges!” And that how I feel: show me the judges. Who are … who’s doing this to Julian Assange? Just show me who the judges are! Show me those who are conspiring in the judiciary to destroy this young man, this brilliant young man, this great journalist. Show me who those people are. Those are the ones that should be behind bars.
CM: Yep. No, you’re absolutely right: there’s much more evil done by the State and those in a position of power in the State than there is by, unfortunately, the actual criminals (as the state sees them). Anyway, Randy, we ….
RC: You get these people, they’re so … the blacks and Latinos that go through the criminal justice system. It creates a lot of jobs for the bailiffs, for the lawyers, for the bail bondsmen, the jailers … you know, for the prison guards. Everyone’s got a piece of pie. But you need low-level so-called criminals; but the big criminals—the ones that start wars, the guys like Tony Blair and people like Jack Straw—they’re walking the streets.
CM: Yep. No, I quite agree. Well, we’d better wind it up, Randy. That’s been a long ….
RC: It was a long conversation … it was a long, a long … the end is in sight … and I’m sorry it was so garrulous there, but …
CM: No, that was excellent. And it’s very good that you got that off your chest, if you like, and, you’ve got the record set absolutely straight now for people to hear, which is superb.
RC: It’s the only interview I’m doing. I told you that I needed to get this off. Believe me … I’m getting calls all day long, to be interviewed. I did the one interview. It’s over—I’m not doing another one. So thanks very much for bearing with me … it was like going to a shrink, right now, and I got this off my chest. OK?
CM: It’s a new career for me. All right. I’ve got to go now, Randy, and get that processed. All right?
RC: Thank you very much. You know it’s the first time I’ve been interviewed by you. I’ve interviewed you 45 times over the years.
CM: Yes, it’s quite fun doing it the other way round.
RC: And give my best to Cameron and to Nadira. OK?
CM: I will do. Thank you very much. Thank you.
RC: All right. Thank you. Bye bye.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


54 thoughts on “The Roger Stone – Wikileaks – Russia Hoax

  • Willie

    What a truth perverted world we live in where it is spun that up is down and down is up.

    This transcript of interview is absolutely fascinating and exposes just how, and then some, dark agents of governance operate.

    Bringing light, helping the public to understand of a world of which they do not know is an ongoing fight. Thank you Craig for supporting the battle. Democracy, social justice and fairness are hard won.

  • Sarge

    A very important corrective. The Guardian destroyed itself with its fake ‘Manafort visited Assange’ exclusive and rather than row back is doubling down on misinformation.

  • Robyn

    I’m baffled that people keep reading the Guardian (and watching the BBC). I don’t know about you, but if someone repeatedly lies to me I cut them off (or at least take no notice of what they say).

    • Rhys Jaggar

      You actually have to be aware that you can be played before you are capable of resisting it.

      I was very lucky to live abroad for a year aged 17/18 in a country where many things were done differently to Britain and history was taught not from the perspective of the UK state. It meant that thereafter I always knew that there were two sides at least to any story.

      Not everybody gets that experience and relatively few get to develop a healthy disregard for Establishment pronouncements.

      It is really amazing reading BTL comments at the Guardian and comparing them to BTL comments at Breitbart: two sets of brains wired totally different. An eleven year old reading both sets every day for a month without context and critical thought might be setting themselves up for schizophrenia!

      • George McI

        If you believe the comments at Breibart are genuine. I’ve always been amazed at how they can put out an article and, within a day, there may be a more than a thousand comments and climbing even as you watch.

    • Mighty Drunken

      Well when you look at the other (UK) Newspapers and TV channels they don’t look any better. Pick your poison.

      • Glasshopper

        They don’t look much different, but The Guardian attracts people who consider themselves vastly more intelligent and better informed than the hoi polloi. They consider the rest of the media to be below them. And the plebs who read them.

        It has never entered their heads that The Guardian is actually the most ideological paper of the lot, and that it relentlessly pushes an ideological stereotype upon it’s readers.

        I suppose i should add that i’ve been reading it on and off since the 1980s, albeit with a heavy dose of skepticsm. And yes, it has become ten times worse since Rusbridger left, and now no longer even pretends to be a “broad church”.

    • Cassidy

      I’ve been reading The Guardian so I can laugh at arrogant, racist English shooting themselves in the feet and causing a depression in their economy because they can’t stand living next door to a Polish plumber. And yes, its a shame they are dragging Scots and others along with this. If anyone knows any decent UK media, I’d be glad for the suggestions. I also check The Independent at some times.

      But no, I don’t trust the Guardian, I haven’t since they u-turned and suddenly supported Tony Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq after pretending to be lefty. I spend most of my time laughing at The Guardian and how slanted they are towards Labour For The Few, but I’m still not going to read Sky News or BBC.

  • Sean Lamb

    “The first conversation Randy ever had with Julian Assange was on 25 August 2016 and it was on-air on Randy’s radio show. There was no private talk off-air around the show. That was Randy’s only contact of any kind with Julian Assange before the 2016 election. His next contact with him, also an on-air interview, was not until Spring 2017, well after the election. He could not have been in any sense a channel to Wikileaks.”

    In which case Roger Stone has been completely appropriately convicted for lying to Congress.

    I think what has happened is people in the general hysteria have begun to lost sight of what was illegal and what wasn’t illegal. It wasn’t illegal for Assange to tease his releases to Credico and it wasn’t illegal for Credico to gossip to Stone. And it is certainly the only way that the text messages exchanged between the two that are clearly using coded language can be understood.

    However, since Roger Stone’s lawyers went out of their way to insist Credico was testifying accurately, then there was really no option for the jury but to find Stone guilty of lying to Congress.

    If Stone’s defense team would have served him better if they had advised him to plead guilty. If they were not prepared to argue Roger STone’s testimony was truthful, there doesn’t seem much point in a not guilty plea

    • Sean Lamb

      It is worth pointing out that had Credico been Stone’s source for Wikileaks, then Russiagate collapses, because there was manifestly nothing mysterious or illegal about information leaking via Credito to the Trump campaign

      This is why Credico was put under pressure to deny his conversations. With Credico eliminated, Russiagate – even if it is on life support – lingers on. Because it is possible to hypothesize an as yet unidentified Russian source (texts to Guccifer 2.0? via Jerome Corsi?) to provide the collusion with the Trump campaign

      This is why Stone’s defense team had to stab him in the back.

    • craig Post author

      “it is certainly the only way that the text messages exchanged between the two that are clearly using coded language can be understood.”

      Either they mean what they say on the surface, or they are coded and you don’t know what they mean. You can’t have it both ways. In fact both of them were bigging themselves up to each other, but it was all based on absolutely nothing.

      You persist in wanting to believe “Julian Assange teased his releases to Credico”. He didn’t. They had one single contact which was an on-air interview. No other contact.

      • Sean Lamb

        When Stone texts “WTF” after Assange cancelled a press conference and Credico texts back “head fake”, that doesn’t mean anything on the surface, it looks to me like coded language – it means something to the correspondents that is opaque to outsiders.

        If Credico’s “head fake” actually meant anything to Stone – in the context of the cancellation of a press conference – then to all intents and purposes Credico was acting as a back channel, even if he wasn’t aware of it. Or at least it would be easily open to Stone’s defence to argue that.

        It is a simple concept, if you plead non-guilty to the charge of lying to congress, you need to argue in court your client didn’t lie to congress. The “so what” defense is always destined to be a disaster.

        In the same way if you are charged with conspiring to hack a DoD network, you need to argue your client didn’t conspire to hack a computer network. Not that hacking a defense computer network would be entirely justifiable. This is particularly important when it is blindingly obvious your supposed co-conspirator clearly had no intent to hack anything.

        • pretzelattack

          yeah your strained interpretation of “coded conversation”. people don’t always duplicate their entire previous conversations, but to you that means there is a code. the burden of proof is on the ones claiming russia hacked the election. they haven’t produced any solid evidence of this.

          • Sean Lamb

            Actually in this particular context the burden of proof was on those who claimed Stone had lied to Congress.

            This burden was considerably eased when his defense team insisted that Stone had indeed lied to Congress. This is particularly of relevance to Assange who to date has had a legal team bizarrely reluctant to say he hadn’t conspired to hack into anything.

            Call me old fashioned, but I like defense lawyers to defend their clients, regardless of the underlying truth of the matter.

        • Cassidy

          If “head fake” sounds like code, then someone is seriously un-cool. Pretty normal language where I come from. But yeah, the uptight crowd never gets it.

          If Credico is in entertainment, then self-promotion is a daily part of life. I doubt he could be who he is without self-promoting much of the day. Its not a secret code to pretend that you are more in the know than you really are. So, saying ‘head fake’ is a way of sounding cool and important and closer to Assange than he really is.

          If this is all the Russiagators have got, then they are on really thin ice.

          • Sean Lamb

            Many people still find this difficult to understand. Stone pressing Credico for information was not illegal and was not Russiagate.

            Stone lying about Credico supplying him with information was Russiagate because it begs the question of
            a) where he was getting information (if he had any) from
            b) why did he feel the need to lie.

            Personally, I think Stone was likely getting some information from Credico – whether accurate information or important is another matter. But regardless his lawyers should either have argued that he was and Credico was lying or being economical with the truth – or tried for a plea bargain.

            It is stupid to plead not-guilty to lying to Congress if your defence lawyers immediately stipulate you did lie to Congress.

  • N_

    Wikileaks and Julian Assange made it crystal clear in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was their big enemy and that they wanted to stop her presidential bid in favour of her opponent, Donald Trump.

    • Sarge

      Exposing a presidential candidate’s corruption and wrongdoing hardly warrants all the smears and torture JA has been subjected to. Let alone the droning suggested by the unhinged presidential candidate.

      • N_

        I have personally encouraged a number of those eligible to nominate candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize to nominate Julian Assange, @Sarge. I unequivocally condemn his persecution, imprisonment, and subjection to smears. The case against him in Sweden was 100% fake, and the release of communications exposing US war crimes was heroic. But in 2016 he did his bit to help Donald Trump get elected. Life is complicated.

        • Republicofscotland

          “But in 2016 he did his bit to help Donald Trump get elected. Life is complicated.”

          Maybe not that bad of a thing right now as the neoliberal warmongerers are now trying to have him impeached because he’s not trying hard enough to invade murder and pillage around the globe to their satisfaction.

        • jmg

          > But in 2016 he did his bit to help Donald Trump get elected. Life is complicated.

          The reality is… Neither the DNC whistleblower, nor WikiLeaks, nor the rest of the press/media.

          Hillary herself was who helped Trump get elected by being so corrupt.

        • DiggerUK

          “But in 2016 he did his bit to help Donald Trump get elected” @marxist.
          No, he didn’t, he had a story of corruption in the DNC. All he did was his job as a journalist…_

        • Glasshopper

          Klington was more than capable of turning off enough American voters on her own. Her campaign was abysmal and elitist.

          Trump was speaking to packed football stadiums 3 times a day in the rust belt while she was schmoozing celebrities in Martha’s Vineyard.

          Had she done the same she would have won. Nothing to do with Assange, Putin etc.

          We’re getting the same cobblers from the same idiots about Brexit. They cannot accept that the plebs have had enough of them and want change.

        • Cassidy

          Hey, to me the last election was ABC …. Anybody But Clinton.
          I caucused for Bernie, but the Dems stole it from him.
          I voted for Trump in the General election.

          Hillary was clearly the Greatest Evil in that election. As a usual Green Party voter, I am regularly told by Dems that I have to vote for the Lesser Evil, no matter how evil that particular Dem really is. But this time, a vote for Hillary was a vote for Global Nuclear War. She was threatening an immediate escalation in Syria, imposing a no-fly zone, which the Joint Chiefs had already said could start a war with Russia. And she was openly promoting conflict with Russia. I still describe the Hillary-Biden wing of the Democrats as the “We Want Nuclear War and We Want It Now!” faction. They scare the heck out of me.

          I can’t stand Trump, but I’m still glad I voted for him, as I don’t think I’d be alive by now if I hadn’t. The nation can survive 4 years of Trump, but I didn’t think the world could survive 4 years of Hillary.

          And no, I am not a Russian asset. 🙂

          • jmg

            Cassidy wrote:
            > I caucused for Bernie, but the Dems stole it from him. I voted for Trump in the General election. Hillary was clearly the Greatest Evil in that election. . . . The nation can survive 4 years of Trump, but I didn’t think the world could survive 4 years of Hillary.

            “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Fake progressive Hillary Clinton is not John Kennedy indeed, but a clear neocon:

            – Bombing of Yugoslavia 1999: “I urged him to bomb.”

            – Iran and Israel 2008: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran.”

            – Julian Assange 2010: “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

            – Libya’s Gadaffi 2011: “We came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha, ha!”

            – Benghazi hearing 2013: “What difference at this point does it make?”

            – Podesta emails 2016: “You need both a public and a private position.”

            – Syrian war 2016: “No-fly zone.” Meaning shooting down Russian planes.

            – Julian Assange 2019: “He has to answer for what he has done.”

            https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/cartoon.jpg

    • jmg

      “2. Does WikiLeaks seek to play a partisan role in the US election? No.

      “WikiLeaks is a publisher. WikiLeaks provides a safe means for whistleblowers to make disclosures to the public on wrongdoing committed by any government or private enterprise. If we have significant confidential information on Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton we will publish it. If we have information on any significant power faction or candidate in a globally significant election campaign, we publish it.”

      WikiLeaks Ten Year Anniversary (2016):
      Frequently Distorted Facts about WikiLeaks
      https://wikileaks.org/10years/distorted-facts.html

      See also:

      Assange Statement on the US Election — WikiLeaks — 08 November 2016
      https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html

        • jmg

          > Do you simply take everyone’s word at face value, when they tell you how honest and straight-up they are?

          Well, no, everyone says that.

          “In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.”
          — Walter Cronkite, most trusted journalist in long-gone America

          The fact is that these years, when one routinely verify facts from multiple sources, WikiLeaks has consistently been the most accurate and verifiable, way ahead from the rest of press/media, including today’s BBC.

          There is not really much love for truth today. Career, power, etc. are more important. Notable exceptions are very few, like Consortium News’ real journalism, and for example I can mention Ambassador Craig Murray’s excellent blog as well.

          It’s a surprising fact, however this is indeed what WikiLeaks is all about:

          Truth – Julian Assange
          https://i.imgflip.com/3fokd7.jpg

          “Assange wrote in a 2010 op-ed that WikiLeaks aspires to ‘work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true.’ ‘Scientific journalism,’ he explained, ‘allows you to read a story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?’”

          Corporate Media Have Second Thoughts About Exiling Julian Assange From Journalism | FAIR | June 5, 2019
          https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-have-second-thoughts-about-exiling-julian-assange-from-journalism/

          That’s it.

        • Cassidy

          If I remember correctly, the State Media organization known as the BBC was playing a role in the American election by openly supporting Hillary.

          There was lots of media and journalists meddling in that election. Fox was the Trump cheerleading squad, while CNN and MSNBC were the Hillary cheerleaders. The NYT and the WaPo and other major papers were very clear on who they wanted to see elected. But, funny how Wikileaks gets picked out to be the smearjob.

          That’s ok, I know this is the core of who the Democrats are. I worked for and voted for Nader in 2000, and I heard more nonsense from silly Dems about that too. This is what the Dems do when they lose and election. Lying and smears and blame games and scapegoats are the core of the Democrats.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    The list of those convicted resulting from the Mueller investigation’ “matters arising” clause is not comprehensive. To add just a few, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates and Alex can defeat Zwaan. The degree to which these individuals misled investigators is sometimes trivial to the point of pedantry and yet resources are spent obtaining convictions. All concerned are described as “Trump associates” where degrees of separation are sometimes lengthy. Meanwhile the silence surrounding Joseph Mifsud is deafening. Robin Ramsay touches on this today on an updated View from the bridge (Lobster).

    An aside relevant to Salisbury and Douma; according to MoA, career British diplomat Bob Fairweather is the true power behind the throne at the OPCW. Fairweather ushered OPCW investigators into a office to be harangued by three unspecified American spooks. In précis, “You WILL find that it was Assad wot dun it!”.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Vivian O’Blivion November 18, 2019 at 12:42
      ‘…An aside relevant to Salisbury and Douma; according to MoA, career British diplomat Bob Fairweather is the true power behind the throne at the OPCW. Fairweather ushered OPCW investigators into a office to be harangued by three unspecified American spooks. In précis, “You WILL find that it was Assad wot dun it!”…’
      It would be helpful with important info like that to provide links.

    • Cassidy

      This is how the FBI and US attorneys operate.

      For example, here is advice that goes around among activists in America. Never, ever talk, even for a moment, to an FBI agent. Because its a Federal law that lying to an FBI agent can get you 5 years in a Federal pen. You can say you want a lawyer present if the FBI wants to arrange to talk. That’s legal.

      What the FBI does is come around asking very innocent sounding questions. They come by a bit after your roommate leaves to go somewhere, and they ask you if they know where he/she is going. You don’t want the tell the FBI anything, so you answer “I don’t know”. But, they’ve tapped your phones and reading your text so they’ve got proof that you just got a text that said “going to the store.” Now you are sitting in an interview room with FBI agents threatening to send you to prison for 5 years if you don’t spy on other activists.

      The Mueller investigation was pretty much by the playbook for how the Feds always operate. As could be expected from a former head of the FBI leading a team of FBI agents and US attorneys.

      • Dungroanin

        As we know – as Larry Johnson over at the sst site regularly updates – the ‘there was no there, there’ texts ; aling with the evidence being produced by Mattis’ new lawyer, the conspiracy to get Trump and Mattis was organised by the very top of the FBI – they met the day before Mattis was ‘interviewed’.
        Thereafter the ‘there’ was fabricated. The notes of the interviewe went missing! A FBI interview. which has to be lodged into their system within days!
        The FBI agents perjury and tampering of evidence and that conspiracy is out in the open. Russiagate is dead. Ukrainegate is a smokescree to protect the FBI and CIA run operation with direct links to the top of the WH and State. Aided and abetted by the equally out of conrol British secret services and Steele from the very start.

        The testimonies yesterday of Morrison & Volker blew that mini conspiracy. It looks like the NSC is distancing itself and is ready to throw the CIA infiltrators in their ranks to the baying crowds. Good.

        It is discombobulating to be cheering on the Republicans against the Democrats in the impeachment hearings – but that is a small price to pay to get a chance to can the global robber baronery and savages of their agencies.

        The main thing holding up justice is the bipartisan bs about ‘National Interest’ the sooner the citizens understand that does not mean the interests of the majority of them the better. Natural justice overides any such pathetic call to ‘national interest’ – ask the slavery emancipated.

  • Gerard

    I read that Guardian article when it came out, when I got to the end I was none the wiser as to what exactly Roger Stone has done.
    I found the Guardian article to be quite strange, full of lots of “colour” and a donald trump tweet, but little actual detail. But then the Guardian has been going down hill since alan rutbridge left, it is starting to approach the telegraph in its overt biases.

    • John Goss

      Yes Rusbridger was much preferred to the woman who replaced him. Somebody must know her name, though I have no idea why they might want to.

  • Ort

    Thanks for providing this transcript; I trust that Sam and Jon have been richly rewarded for extracting clarity from the less than optimal audio recording.

  • Royd

    When all is known how will we carry the weight of our deceits? How will our wrongs be made right? How will the damage to those we harmed be repaired? Keep on Craig. We need to combat the deceits, the wrongs and we need to fight for a world that is better than this.

  • John Goss

    It’s a solid testimony from a genuine, loquacious man. I should think Randy Credico is any interviewer’s dream guest. Though I thought in the early stages you were leading him too much. For example.

    “Is it a fair characterisation to say that you, Randy, you’re on the libertarian left of politics, whereas Roger’s on the libertarian right, and you both met because there were some issues such as drug decriminalization on which you agree and on which he then did good work in decriminalizing communities in New York. Is that the basic analysis?”

    Instead of something like:

    “Where do you and Roger stand politically?” and “What common ground do you have?”

    There are other instances of what barristers might call leading the witness which I suspect is similar practice for interviews. Nevertheless as the interview progressed the questioning improved.

    I guess it is difficult to know the most opportune moment to interject when someone is going with the flow. All in all it is a very revealing account which shows the establishment up for everything it is, and is not.

    His comments about US prisons being terrible places and why he, like so many campaigners, does not want to see Julian Assange extradited there gives a clear message why no person with a heart should be voting Tory at the forthcoming election.

  • David G

    “super packs” should be “super PACs” – a super PAC bring an entity for legally purchasing politicians in the U.S.

    Thanks for the interview and transcript.


    [ Mod: Thanks. Duly amended. ]

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    I tried listening, but it was just very very tedious. It seemed like mad rambling, and at times incoherent.I had no sense of this being a credible testimony.Then I tried reading the transcript but this repeats the rambling feel and any points were buried in a mass of verbiage.It needs summarising with attention drawn to any key information.

  • Cassidy

    From across the pond, I am struck by how hard The Guardian is working to get Boris Johnson returned as PM. OK, I know The Guardian is the voice of the Blairites, and that their masthead should read “All the News Tony Blair wants you to see”, but it is still rather amazing that The Guardian and apparently Tony Blair and his minions want to see Boris Johnson succeed.

    Any time Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage says or does anything, it gets full and over blown coverage in their pages. Their politics “live” feed seems to feature them on most days. Of course, the Labour For The Few Faction and its related Labour Likud Faction get wall to wall coverage. Anyone who criticizes Corbyn is covered.

    For instance, for an entire day, their headline story on the UK politics page was a Boris Johnson quote about “Broadband Communism” against the notion that The Many might have a right and need to access the Internets in the same way as The Few.

    Today, their Opinion page loudly promotes a Vote Suppression drive aimed at Left-leaning and Younger voters. It echoes the same drives in the US that urge anyone Left of Attila the Hun to boycott the elections to show their disgust at the whole thing. I was born in the old racist American South, and thus I got a glimpse into such voter suppression drives when the Whites had to let the Americans of African Heritage vote in elections. The tactics in the modern Anti-Left, Anti-Youth voter suppression drives are very familiar.

    I suspect that a small part of this is the drive to quash Scottish Independence. Nothing in politics happens based on just one reason, but the attacks on Corbyn who has said he’d grant an Independence referendum to Scotland during his time as PM fit the bill.

    I just hope both the Labour For the Many faction and the Scottish Independence advocates are working hard at the grassroots level and can overcome a rigged media environment where the corporate media is either openly pro-Tory and happy to repeat any lie they make, or like The Guardian, masquerading as a left-leaning media that is really acting pro-Tory when one looks closely.

  • Cassidy

    From the American side of the pond, the Libertarian Right was largely opposed to the launching of the Iraq War.

    I am also on the what can be described as the Libertarian Left in America. If I want to confuse people, I’ll call myself a Green-Anarchist-Librtarian, as that usually gets a puzzled look because that breaks all the rules they learned in school. Similar to Mr. Credico, my main issue was the legalization of marijuana. One quickly learned that this whole -Left-Right political spectrum is bogus, as one found that one could make allies on what was described as a Far-Right Libertarian movement who really believed that having the government crash into homes searching for someone smoking a joint was an abuse of what America had been founded to do.

    In 2012, I walked into the county Republican convention as a delegate for the Rep Ron Paul campaign for President. That was, well, interesting. Certainly not something that an old Hippie like me would have ever foreseen. But, Rep Paul, from the Libertarian Right, was the only anti-war candidate in those corporate party caucuses that year, as Obama had forced any anti-war opposition in the Democrats out of the process.

    As note to the supporters of Scottish Independence. I now live in Colorado, where it is now legal to use marijuana for both medical purposes and recreational use. For me, that was the victory at the end of decades of political struggle, where during the whole time it seemed that this mass of politicians, parties, corporations, and especially the media were all arrayed against us, and where the hope of success at times seemed dim during a long darkness. But we eventually WON! It can be done! The people can get together and overcome all of that and eventually win.

    My best wishes to the proponents of Scottish Independence. Keep up the heart, victory is possible. From here, it looks like you are close. And I’ll take a few of my completely legal puffs as a toast to your future success!

  • Cassidy

    I’ve recently been reading, well, re-reading John LeCarre. I’d highly recommend “The Tailor of Panama” for a tale where people who want to believe are ready to believe anything and that there are people willing to take advantage of that.

    Roger Stone sounds like a LeCarre character. Someone who’s bounced from inside to outside, who’s big on self-promotion above all else, and who’s now trying to worm his way back to the inside, who seizes upon something that only exists in the mouth of a con-artist. Yep, pure LeCarre. Probably because LeCarre has an eye for how the world and especially people really are, and does a nice job of putting in words. But yeah, I’d say Roger Stone would make a good LeCarre story, but since I’m thinking of several books and existing characters as I type this, for LeCarre this is old ground. 🙂

  • jmg

    Today, November 19, 2019:

    “Sweden drops 9-year-old ‘preliminary investigation’ into Julian Assange for a third, and final time.”
    — Hanna Jonasson, Assange’s legal team

    “Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information. Let us now focus on the threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment.”
    — Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks

    “Today’s collapse of Sweden’s #Assange investigation was inevitable. Given its gross arbitrariness, there must now be a full investigation, and accountability & compensation for the harm inflicted on #JulianAssange”
    — Nils Melzer, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture

    “There is now no fig leaf of an excuse to continue to detain #JulianAssange. In any functioning democracy that subscribes to the rule of law, the Home Secretary would order his immediate release.”
    — Chris Williamson, Member of the UK Parliament

    “I don’t suppose an apology is pending from those who, for years, referred to Julian as ‘rapist’ and denied that the whole affair was about shoving him in a supermax US black hole for the crime of having exposed crimes against humanity committed in our name”
    — Yanis Varoufakis, Greek MP, co-founder of DiEM25

    “Swedish prosecutors have dropped the Assange investigation. Anyone who believed unproven allegations of sexual assault against a known target of western intelligence agencies was a fool. Anyone who parroted those unproven allegations as fact was a tool. . . .
    “Assange was given asylum by Ecuador because it was known that there was an international conspiracy to extradite him to the US. This was not a conspiracy theory, it was a conspiracy fact. As evidenced by the fact that Assange is now locked in Belmarsh fighting US extradition.”
    — Caitlin Johnstone, writer, journalist

    “Sweden today drops Assange investigation into sexual allegations. Never was a scintilla of evidence for the most phoney and obvious state fit-up in history.
    “I wait for the personal apologies from virtually the entire fucking mainstream media.
    “Julian jailed for publishing truth.”
    — Craig Murray, former British Ambassador

  • Gary

    What’s NOT strange is a newspaper getting the bare facts of a story wrong. I see it all the time in noon contentious reporting. They fail to fact check eve the most BASIC facts that would only take a moment, they take what is handed to them, put it into their own words and regurgitate it – lazy journalism. Laziness I can understand, tight deadlines and a ready-made story make it all too tempting to simply rewrite it. Just rewording press releases and the like. It’s a bit like schoolkids rewording their essay straight out of a text book, plagiarism rather than journalism.

    But what IS surprising is when they go to the extent of changing ALL of the facts. This story would have been far EASIER to write as a factual story with those facts left intact. Instead they have changed the facts for falsehoods, added in something that simply doesn’t exist and write a fictional narrative for their readers. A few years ago The Guardian was being put upon by our own Intelligence Services and being forced to hand over hard drives with Wikileaks information on it, they tried to refuse initially but had to cave. From that to this is quite a fall. It’s almost like our intelligence services OWN The Guardian now, maybe they do?

    I’m interested in politics and all other aspects of news. These days I find I can’t trust any single news source to give me that absolute truth on ANY story – the only accurate thing is the date for some of them! Now what I do is to read the blogs of news sources from different countries to get THEIR view of stories in MY country. They, of course, have their own biases. They leave out that which doesn’t suit THEIR narrative BUT they include that which does. To get any semblance of the full picture you now have to read the same story from at least two sources (ie two countries) Whether it’s from France, Germany, Russian or even Iran! You’ll get something that our own papers, reporting locally, have decided NOT to include for their own biases. Of course the other sources have biases of their own, there is an element of judgement to be used but it’s not TOO hard to wade through and get, at least, a FULLER picture than that presented.

    What IS really invaluable are blogs like yours, Craig. Although you can’t cover ALL the stories, what you DO cover is very revealing. On this story, for example, I’d never have known that the most BASIC facts presented by The Guardian were, in fact, lies. That’s the only way to describe it, because it’s NOT a mistake and it is completely untrue. For the paper to have decided to do this I can only conclude that this is a propaganda campaign being run, out of The Guardian in this case, by our intelligence services in order to form our opinion in a certain way. Just what else are they lying about to change our opinions??

  • Tomonthebeach

    I usually dismiss anything said by somebody who shrugs off lies, fake news, propraganda, etc. with the flip “everybody lies to Congress” or “everybody knows.” Such phrases always trigger my bullshit detector. What this story, which tries to whitewash the many Trumpies currently in jail or headed there (awaiting pardons from their Capo at 1600) is why they lied and went to jail if their crimes were nothing burgers. In fact, they appear to we outside Conspiracytheory City as if they are a coordinated attempt to cleans Trump of culpability for serial misdeeds.

    Russiagate was not a hoax as this article asserts. It was a circus designed protect Trump. We all heard POTUS on TV invite campaign aid from a foreign adversary – Russia. We have recently seen Trump’s personal atty associated with two Ukrainian mobsters – even saw pictures (many pictures) of these Ukrainian clowns with Trump! So, sorry, where there is smoke, there are probably mirrors. This windy conpiracy notion does no compute.

Comments are closed.