World Exclusive: Post Testimony Interview with Randy Credico 73

Following his appearance as the main witness for the prosecution against former Trump aide Roger Stone, my good friend Randy Credico has had the entire American mainstream media chasing him for an interview. He has however decided to give only this single interview to me, which is put out here and which is free for everybody to use, with acknowledgement.

Five of the seven charges against Stone relate directly to Randy, who is the witness that Stone is accused of tampering with and attempting to intimidate. There is a tremendous irony here. The Mueller investigation was set up to reveal links between the Trump campaign, Russia and Wikileaks. There are no such links, as has already been proven in another US court. Roger Stone ends up being charged with lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, by pretending he had links to Wikileaks when he did not. He is also charged with trying to intimidate Randy into saying there was such a link and Randy was the back channel; which I myself can attest is nonsense.

The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone’s trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth.

So here is Randy.


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



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
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.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

73 thoughts on “World Exclusive: Post Testimony Interview with Randy Credico

1 2
  • bj

    “… you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth.”

    … and which is why it’s appreciated here in Holland, and even though I see 3.14.16 on the clock (pi-time), may be enjoyed even before my ears hit the sack.

    “So here is Randy.”
    I hear “heeeeere’s… Johnny!” (without the axe).

  • DiggerUK

    The Guardian on Friday.

    non sequitur,
    The Russia inquiry that Boris Johnson is sitting on is gathering a RUMOUR mill that suggests Johnson’s business connections with Russians is contained within. Anybody heard anything of substance. Twitter cut and paste…_
    Tom Harper

    Breaking – 9 Russian businessmen who gave money to the Conservative party are named in a secret intelligence report on the threats posed to UK democracy which was suppressed last week by Downing Street. See tomorrow’s Sunday Times story with @cazjwheeler

  • Brianfujisan

    You Are Correct Craig

    The MSM will never tell us the truths that you and other Whistle Blowers Reveal… That’s why we should all support Alt Media. Cos the Billionaires control the Lies.

    Even when the Suppression ends in millions of Dead .. Are You listening BBC.


  • David

    Hmmm…I notice that The Daily Caller’s related news article came out at 10:31pm Eastern Standard Time yesterday, which was approx 03:31am Edinburgh time, today. So Chuck Ross might conceivably have listened to your hour-long interview Craig, before “spontaneously” filling in his bits of the story. (you don’t get a link, Chuck’s story does stand-alone fairly well, but I sort of get a feeling that you might well have inspired it, allowed him to complete the bits that he has been following – Daily Caller has a link to the Court Transcript , for example.)

    Whilst , Hillaryously , the WaPo’s trial coverage focuses on the sartorial elegance of Roger Stone during the trial…. only the comments were worth reading

    thanks for the interestinig interview, essential reading for when the US-coup backlash crosses the Atlantic (what worries me the most is I was recently reading stories that US Republican leaning spooks were getting ready for another four years of ‘resistance’ should a Democrat droid, or worse, be elected next year – of course that could be targeted forn prop.)

  • Robyn

    I understand Julian Assange is on the list of witnesses to be called by Roger Stone’s legal team. If only …

  • Donald McGregor

    Thanks Craig.
    These twists and turns in political shenanigans make my head birl even when they are explained.
    I’m glad you are keeping up!

  • RogerDodger

    Congrats on the scoop Craig. Proof I think that you’re an estimable force in the news cycle. The govt trolls must be beside themselves at this further inconvenience to the establishment narrative (I’m sure they’ll be along any minute once they’ve agreed on the spin!)

    • Rose

      My thoughts too Roger. It wasn’t an easy listen – I didn’t catch everything he said including the name of his comedian friend – but I’m glad I made the effort. Every little piece in the jigsaw helps to build the picture.
      Thanks Craig

  • AlexT

    Thanks – most interesting.

    Not willy to nit pick but the audio is really crappy – if you plan to do this kind of stuff (podcast ? audio interview ?) just reach out and I’ll try to setup a decent rig for you.

    • DiggerUK

      And if somebody could transcribe the audio into text and post the result here, then we could link to other outlets…..with due acknowledgment…_

    • Brianfujisan

      Alex, And DiggerUK

      Yes that would be Great.. I’m sure Craig would Appreciate that Gesture / Thought.. As someone who relays on Hearing Aids

    • craig Post author

      Alex, yes it is terrible I know. Randy sent a text wanting to do it straight away, and I had no equipment to hand other than my telephone. It was much worse in fact – Randy was actually inaudible on most of the recording – and I spent an hour improving it on an audio editing suite.

  • Republicofscotland

    Great Scoop Craig, you deserve it for tenacity to seek the truth. Hopefully you’ll now garner a wider audience.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    This is how I see – DONALD HOOD TRUMP:-

    There are at least ten (10) interesting and telling points of comparison and contrast between Robin Hood and Donald Hood.

    1.Robin Hood was faithful to his woman; Donald Hood has been unfaithful to his woman/women.
    2. Robin Hood consistently spoke the truth; Donald Hood has consistently lied. Fact checkers in the US have verified and confirmed thousands of lies spoken, while the Donald on a daily basis continues to lie.
    3. Robin Hood accepted his failings and did not gloat and boast about his successes; Donald Hood never accepts any failings and gloats and boasts whether about failures or successes. He initially denied that he sought a quid pro quo ( for personal reasons) in his conversation with the Ukrainian President and called his misbehaviour “ a perfect conversation”.
    4. Robin Hood robbed from the rich to give to the poor; Donald Hood robs from the poor to give to the rich.
    5. In a song about Robin Hood, there is a line which runs, ‘ loved by the good and feared by the bad’; when it comes to Donald Hood the line must run, ‘ loved by the bad and feared by the good’.
    6. In the Annals of English history there is a ballad in which it is written, “he was a good outlawe”; while for Donald Hood it has to be said and written that he proved to be a bad outlaw.
    7. Robin Hood led a band of loyal merry men; Donald Hood’s people around him are quite unhappy with his leadership and there has been formal anonymous complaint filed against him.
    8. As a leader to the end Robin Hood remained appreciative of the loyalty shown to him; Donald Hood is transactional and discards people when they are no longer useful to him. For example, Donald Hood’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, felt remorseful and obliged to lament that after a decade of devout loyalty, he discovered that he was misguided in having given his loyalty, for Donald Hood was not worthy of such loyalty.
    9. Robin Hood was clear and consistent in his mission; Donald Hood is impulsive, indecisive and contradictory; for example, Donald Hood announced to the world that the mission in Syria had been accomplished and so all his troops were pulling out. At about the same time, the Donald announces that some troops would be left in Northern Syria where the oil wells are. He went further and declared that he would be facilitating the stealing of Syrian oil. At least in that regard he was perfectly consistent with the conduct of Robin Hood, for here he has declared himself to be a true bandit.
    10. Robin Hood had acted as a source of cohesion for the poor and downtrodden and as a font of justice; Donald Hood has acted as a source of divisiveness with impulsive and destructive motives which do not bode well either for the poor and downtrodden or for justice.

      • Tom Welsh

        Yes, pretty infantile. I gave up as soon as I saw the shocked accusation that Mr Trump has told lies.

    • Dungroanin

      I suppose on Sundays the top IoS/ii/77 staffers are too busy at Church or field sports or whatever to provide a list of TP’s?

      Did you make that up? Isn’t it beyond your paygrade?

      Here is the basic FAIL on your little fable (that’s the clue). Ready?

      1. Robin Hood – is a fictional/fairy tale character.
      Donald Trump – is not a fictional potus.

      2 – 10. See 1.

      You should follow Stonky’s advice and get over to the ABC/ABT ragsheets.

      • Courtenay Barnett


        ” 1. Robin Hood – is a fictional/fairy tale character.
        Donald Trump – is not a fictional potus”

        By jove I think he got it. It is the factual reality which actually is quite frightening. The fact that a man of such nature could actually be sitting in such high office wielding and influencing such great power in America and across the globe – which decisions impact us all.

        • Dungroanin

          He was voted in.

          You are not alone in your misguided opinion – as the article and interview shows – some very important DS agencies instigated real criminal conspiracies against their elected executive. That is Treason, attempted coup, incitement and perjury to name a few charges.

          Robin Hood meanwhile is still a fictional outlaw.

          • Courtenay Barnett

            Dungroanin ,

            You absolutely make me laugh – what’s your pay grade?

            P.S. You just did not get my point – therefore not recommending you for an uplift on your pay grade.

          • Courtenay Barnett


            So you start a fight; then you run away – what kind of fighter are you?


        • Dungroanin

          Glad that you can laugh – sense of humour is mandatory to good mental health.

          I don’t run – i stay and fight and – win.

          This site does not have a notification system or an ability to see if there are any replies so I don’t know if you have answered unless I check back, it is arduous – not complaining much seeing as it is an amateur construction maybe CM & volunteers may upgrade to full functionality some day.

          Anyway, i’m here and will check back later, bring it on.

          In the meantime enjoy this quote, marks for naming the film

          ‘She left open the possibility of a presidential run in 2020. “I would have been a good president, so obviously that lives in the back of my head. I’m going to do everything I possibly can to make sure we retire the current incumbent.” ‘

    • Doghouse

      Good grief you could apply that nonsense to almost any recent president or many world so called leaders for that matter, some far greater womanisers into the bargain. The list is endless. I’m no apologist for Trump, got no time for a one of them no matter their orientation, sex, religion, race or colour. But a living truth is that coming to the end of his term and the only bombs he has overtly dropped were on forewarned empty buildings – not so previous man of peace and Nobel recipient eh? Yeah, yeah I know he’s applying sanctions which people die from and approving Israel’s moves etc but show me a potential president who wouldn’t. At least he’s not raining bomb after bomb after frickin’ bomb on top of the heads of absolutely terrified, petrified and ultimately massacred citizens of whatever damned country enters his sights. – Yet.

      And for me, that’s a step in the right direction whatever party or country such a person hails from.

      Still, Hilary good, Trump bad. Dems good, Reps bad. Yawn.

      • Donald

        Go visit the Airwars site and you will see that both Obama and Trump killed thousands of civilians in their bombing campaigns, but Trump was worse. Look at what happened to Mosul and Raqqa. And both Presidents support or supported the Saudi war on Yemen.

        Trump is, so far, not out of the ordinary when it comes to Presidential war crimes. But he is a war criminal.

      • Courtenay Barnett


        Regarding ” Do… ” my initial inquiry is – why did he/she attack me so strongly – when all that I did was to expose known truths in a humorous way?

        Beyond that –

        You are obviously highly intelligent – so why do you feign lack of intelligence? You try to deflect what are quite serious global issues and then pretend that same is not quite serious for the entire globe. Then, in a quite cowardly manner you challenge me and then retreat when I fire counter shots.
        Who are you anyway – please answer.
        Thank you.

  • nevermind

    excellent global scoop Craig, it will make the msm spit feathers.
    These are the kind of articles that should persuade more of your readers to put their hands in their pockets for some change, voluntarily pay for real news.
    I could hear the interview ok on earphones, despite the whirl of the washing machine on spin, but there is an underlying hiss and some moving of chairs and stuff that could be cleaned up, but essentially its there.

    Russia is innocent and Roger Stone has no links to Wikileaks, what a trial buster that is, well done to all who persisted with digging and three cheers to friendship…..

  • Dungroanin

    Randy sounds upset that 67 year old Stone faces prison. Hasn’t he accumulated any knowledge of skeletons in cupboards during his time to rattle infront of prosecutors to avoid Jail if not conviction? i though the Yanks were quite keen on deals.

    You makes your bed etc.

    Along with Larry Johnsons coverage of the exposure of the FBI conspiracy, how long before arrests?
    Who actually can arrest the top FBI/CIA officials?
    Can it be made to happen in the next 3 weeks?

    Just asking for bearded old fella in a race against odds…

  • Jane

    I wish you would also look into the story mentioned by DiggerUK about the report on alleged Russian meddling in the EU referendum which the Tories are allegedly refusing to publish. All these allegations – my head is starting to spin. The article in the Guardian about it can be found here:
    The article is co-authored by Luke Harding. Who else? The trouble is that none other than Paul Kavanagh, our own Wee Ginger Dug, seems to have joined the Russia is the greatest enemy of civilisation brigade. See his recent post entitled “How do you say ‘buying influence’ in Russian?” If even the alternative Scottish Independence sites start to sound like Stewart McDonald, what hope have we?

    • DiggerUK

      Luke Harding…..quelle surprise!
      And this little gem…..”The committee’s report is based on analysis from Britain’s intelligence agencies, as well as third-party experts such as the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele”…… that a typo, should it read third rate expert?…_

  • Sean Lamb

    Frankly, Randy Credico has perjured himself and by his perjury is trying – probably deliberately – to send a man to jail

    By any reasonable definition Randy Credico was clearly a back channel to Roger Stone, inasmuch as Julian Assange would privately tease his upcoming data dumps to Randy Credico during the negotiations to appear on his show, and Roger Stone would then try and pump Randy Credico for the gossip. That isn’t illegal or a conspiracy or even particularly exciting, but it is a back channel, even if not a particularly reliable one.

    So when Roger Stone testified before Congress that he got some of his information via Jerome Corsi and some via Randy Credico, he told the truth.

    It is Randy Credico who is lying.

  • Athanasius

    Ah, but Craig, surely you know by now that it’s never wrong when the LEFT do it? I mean, any supposed “wrongdoing” is excused by the nobility of their cause. And after all, Orange Man Bad. Personally, I was a lifelong leftie. I stopped when I had the sudden, unwelcome thought that I don’t get a free pass because I think of myself as being a “good person”. Everyone thinks of themselves that way, including the bad guys. It’s a very uncomfortable realization.

    • Keith McClary

      You have to distinguish the “LEFT” from the phoney progressive leaders who are in the pockets of corporations and the 1% .

    • George McI

      Well sure it’s “a very uncomfortable realization” to know that everyone thinks they are correct and the left are nasty and the right are nasty too and – oh golly gosh, what can we do? I know! We’ll just sit on this nice fence.

  • remember kronstadt

    give me trump over hilary and obama every time — corruptor of party wannabe and resigned kill compliant

  • Wikikettle

    There is a titanic battle in the US between the Clintonite Democrats, MSM, MIC, CIA, FBI, MI6 and NSA on one side and Trump on the other. When it comes to matters of War and Peace, I will pinch my nose and choose Trump. As for our own spooks, they will be crapping themselves if their role in fake Russiagate and now Ukrainegate comes out. Trump is under siege by the Security State. All his wrongdoings will be brought out to overthrow him and get US back into the Wars. As for details of Russiagate and Ukraingate I’ve found The Duran and The Grayzone on YouTube very detailed and informative. My main hope at the moment is that Trump persuades the KSA to end the war in Yemen and leave Syria to rebuild itself. The War mongers however have other plans however.

    • Robyn

      Lee Stranahan of the Sputnik radio show/podcast has been onto the Ukraine stuff for years – his reports are a must-listen.

  • Constance Kuppe

    I knew Randy was a Buddhist at heart. Compassion in the end.
    I hope Stone hears this. I couldn’t agree more.

  • Muscleguy

    That was fascinating thank you Craig and Randy. I read something on the Graun the other day and came to the lie about Russia and the DNC and simply closed all the windows and they want me to subscribe to that crap.

    I refuse to pay the BBC license fee, do not have a TV because I refuse to pay to be lied to.

  • Jack

    The whole Russiagate is so absurd, so what if Wikileaks had materials on Clinton showing wrongdoings by her? So what? I dont get it, is that illegal to show this to the world? Whistleblowers are hailed in the west on any day…if they dont show wrongdoings against media itself, or against media-supported politicians!
    The division in the US isnt caused by Trump, it is caused by media, democrats that focus solely on Trump no matter what he do.
    Meanwhile, REAL interefence is being played out in the background:

    Tillerson: Netanyahu, Israelis ‘played’ Trump

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Jack November 10, 2019 at 19:47
      There are already a slew of books out with the goods on the Clintons (and others); do you want to know them?
      And that’s before the Epstein and Pizzagate business.

  • Keith McClary

    Another piece of Russiagate is getting weird, the CONCORD MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING LLC (Internet Research Agency) trial. They have set a trial date (April 6, 2020) and deadlines for pre-trial motions, but now the government, in “ex-parte” communications with the judge, wants to change the indictment. This (one page) Order, dated October 25, was filed on November 8:

    The main page for the trial is here:

  • gareth

    Craig – I agree with your basic thesis, based on your previous posts (and I fully support J Assange and detest the whole treatment of him). But this bloke sounds like The Penguin (i.e. Batman movie) justifying himself and how “he never done it”. Maybe what he is saying is true; having listened to (most of it so far) he just doesn’t sound like a credible witness. Sorry 🙁

    • nevermind

      So why were other news agencies and channels eager to get an interview, Gareth? Were they bored? Interested in what he had to say, or are you playing devils advocate here?

      • Shatnersrug

        A lot of crap trolls on here tonight. Either concern trolling like Gareth or, dismissive like further above. If it were twitter I’d block and forget unfortunately on word press you have to endure them.

    • David Otness

      Gareth—I know Randy via social media particularly for his dedicated work on Pacifica Radio (KPFA—San Francisco) for Julian with Dennis Bernstein, and for his other selfless efforts to overturn New York state’s draconian drug laws. He’s a guy who has been put under serious stress and a spotlight he never wanted.
      The man is solid. Just ask John Pilger or Julian’s mom or dad. Or for that matter, how about trusting Craig?
      That’s all I’ve got.

  • David Otness

    Many thanks, Craig.
    I’ve been following this for a year or so including the ongoing KPFA Flashpoints programs with Randy and Dennis, Julian’s mom, you and John Pilger, and at least this part of the saga is finally concluded for Randy.
    Stone is such a wild card and he’s earned his penalty for trying to play the big shot to ingratiate himself with a bullshit story. And not a care in the world for Julian, something that binds all right-thinking people together.
    What a long strange trip Stone signed himself up for. I reckon he’ll have time aplenty to ponder his delusions of grandeur.

  • pete

    It was a good interview, even given the sound quality. It was fascinating to hear from one of the central characters in this ongoing drama, even if, as I have been, not quite following all the twist and turns in the plot. It also highlights how the main stream media will ignore relevant facts when they do not fit into the central narrative. Inconvenient truth indeed. Thanks very much Craig.

  • giyane.

    ” when it in fact proves the exact opposite ”

    In the post truth age there’s always goingvto be people who think that if they re-work the flimsy evidence enough times they will succeed in driving their square pegs into round holes.
    What is mind boggling is to see people at the highest echelons of government raking up tripe in the courts. They certainly don’t enjoy the courts being used to prosecute their military for war crimes. One can only be amazed , if there are anti- government lawyers around, who scare them, that they feel confident enough to swing their tripe in their favour in the courts at all.

    The entire neocon fairy tale can obviously only exist if enough intelligent minds are working on the fake narrative at any one time.

  • OnlyHalfALooney

    I’ve listened to the interview. I find it all very confusing.

    The full indictment of Roger Stone is available here (pdf):

    I’m not quite sure why Credico sent SMS texts to Stone after Margaret Ratner Kunstler (WikiLeaks) appeared on Credico’s show.

    See section 15 of the indictment: (Organization 1 = WikiLeaks, Person 2 = Credico)

    (c) …In a text message sent later that day, Person 2 added, “[The head of Organization 1] has kryptonite on Hillary.”

    Also strange:
    (d) On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said, “I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded “Ok,” and added in a later text message, “[j]ust remember do not name me as your connection to [the head of Organization 1] you had one before that you referred to.”

    Of course, I am not sure how accurate the indictment is. The narrative and interpretation of the facts presented will almost certainly be contested in court.

    Why on Earth did anyone believe anything Roger Stone claimed in the first place? This is a person who makes up the “truth” as he goes along. But this has been known since Nixon.

    I can’t help feeling this all yet another rather meaningless distraction from the real scandal (that the MSM consistently ignores)::

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC conspired to rig the primary election process. Voters who took the trouble to vote for a different candidate than Clinton (i.e. Bernie Sanders) were, in effect, participating in a fake election. Surely this is the real crime?

    • Sean Lamb

      Roger Stone appears to have known a little a bit about the Podesta emails – in a confused inchoate way – so he must have come by it some way.

      Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico appear to have been leaned on to deny supplying the insignificant gossip to Roger Stone, so that then the Intelligence Community can say “Aha, We warned you, he must have got it from Guccifer 2.0 and the GRU.”. And then when Stone continues to deny this, they say “Look, Stone is prepared to go to jail to protect his boss – this shows that Trump was complicit in the Guccifer 2.0-Stone link.”

      If Credico and Corsi admit to supplying gossip to Stone, then Russian collusion drops completely dead. Because it isn’t illegal for Stone to ask Credico if Assange dropped any hints about upcoming leaks – and it certainly isn’t a conspiracy.

      I don’t know what is motivating Credico to lie like this, it may be he has genuinely come under threat (he completes across is a both narcissistic and pathetic) or if he is trying to ingratiate himself with American leftists to achieve forgiveness for possibly enabling the election of Trump.

      Personally, Credico, Stone and Corsi all seem fairly unlikable old men, but I don’t see why one of them – Stone – should go to jail for such garbage

      • David Otness

        Sorry mate, you are way off base. Facts are stubborn things ~ Mark Twain

        You should at least catch up with the two lawyers who sued the DNC for fraud. Booth Seth Rich and their process server were murdered over this—in order to keep the “Russia-Did-It” action alive, and of course for both omega and revenge on Rich.
        The video is set for a revealing moment. The entire vid is worth the time for truth-seekers, however.
        The last ten minutes are in a word, chilling.

      • OnlyHalfALooney

        From the text messages quoted in the indictment, it looks like Credico was “baiting” Stone with vague boasts of contacts with WikiLeaks. Jerome Corsi (“Person 1”) seems to have also claimed some sort of special access to WikiLeaks.

        Before the DNC e-mails were released, Stone consistently suggested the WikiLeaks release would be about the Clinton Foundation. So he indeed seems to have had some vague but inaccurate knowledge.

        It looks like Stone took these vague boasts by Credico and Corsi of contacts WikiLeaks and presented himself to the Trump Campaign as someone with a “back channel” directly to Assange. (See Steve Bannon’s testimony yesterday.)

        I get the feeling this case is about three elderly narcissists who have been bitten by their own exaggerated claims and self-aggrandisement.

        And now they’re throwing the book at Roger Stone – a rather dislikable person with few genuine political friends and thus an easy target. Of course he’s lied and sent infantile “threatening” e-mails, but I don’t see anything he’s done that merits a prison sentence.

        This is all bullshit about bullshit A complete waste of money and time.

  • Ian

    The whole wikileaks backchannel thing is a diversion. People like Stone fantasised about it in order to give themselves status and bonafides they didn’t have. Of course they and Trump loved wiki at the time because Assange did help them, intentionally or not. It was in their interest to exaggerate and invent links with him, before dumping him.
    None of that doesn’t mean that Trump doesn’t have link with Russian business interests who sought to take advantage of him. Money talks and Trump loves the stuff. Property is the ideal way of laundering money, and Russian oligarchs are very keen to find ways of spiriting their ill-gotten gains away into secure overseas ventures.
    But Assange is the perfect fall guy for both of them. He can take the blame, while not being able to answer back, while they carry on with their nefarious schemes.

1 2

Comments are closed.