I have long said Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal is the most dishonest fake news reporter in America- and that’s with heavy competition. Her latest recycle of old news heralding my saying I had communicated with Julian Assange has long since been clarified as having been thru a third party. Once again she systematically ignores my responses to her questions. I testified as to this under oath before the House Intelligence committee. My testimony to the House Intelligence Committee was 100% accurate and truthful despite claims by hyper partisans who enjoy congressional immunity from lawsuit.

I had no advance knowledge about the acquisition and publication of John Podesta’s e-mail.

I had no advance notice of the source content or exact release date of the WikiLeaks DNC disclosures. I received nothing including hacked e-mails from Guccifer 2.0, the Russians, WikiLeaks or anyone else and therefore passed on nothing to Donald Trump and the Trump campaign or anyone else. My testimony in front of the House Committee was accurate and truthful.”

What I am guilty of is using publicly available information and a solid tip to bluff, posture, hype and punk the Democrats on Twitter. This is called Politics. It’s not illegal “

 

Because of Ms. Holliday’s tendency to omit any information that does fit her preconceived story line designed to get her on a cable talk show… and the fake headlines her little recycle has generated… I publish in full our exchange.

 

 

From: Shelby Holliday <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:52 PM
Subject: WSJ report on Stone’s conference calls

 

 
 

Shelby, your questions are all a re-cycle of issues I have already addressed There is nothing in here that has not already been covered. Just because the Wall Street Journal may not have written about it previously, does not make it breaking news. 

We are reporting on at least two calls that we know Mueller is looking at: 

You are aware that leaks from the Office of Special Counsel to the Wall Street Journal are illegal. Yet the past week has seen a slew of “leaks” that either false or twisted to fit a false narrative. Who could be doing this leaking?

1. An Aug 4, 2016 call in which Roger said the following: 

“In the background of this entire race going forward is the fact that Julian Assange… is going to continue to drop information on the American voters that is going to roil this race.”

It’s important that you do not forget the timeline, or inaccurately represent it.  On June 12, 2016, Julian Assange announced to CNN that WikiLeaks had obtained MORE Hillary Clinton email.  In March 2016, WikiLeaks had already posted a searchable database of tens of thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Assange was widely reported to be planning periodic release of all the information he and his organization had received. My comments reflect what was common knowledge and expectation. It was around this time that Randy Credico told me whatever WikiLeaks had was “big” and would shake up the race and would drop in October. He was correct.

And speaking about the July email dumps:

“The Russians had nothing to do with this. They may have hacked some information regarding climate change, but by and large, Guccifer 2 was the one who hacked these documents. He actually released them several weeks ago. They got no traction. He took them to Assange. Well, Assange put them out to WikiLeaks. We learned about the duplicity of Deborah Wasserman-Schultz and the way Bernie Sanders got it without Vaseline from the Clintons.”

This is absolutely what I believed at the time I said it. I initially believed that Guccifer 2.0 had hacked the DNC because he(?) publicly predicted the e-mails from WikiLeaks. I even wrote a piece for Breitbart saying so. I no longer believe, based on forensic evidence published in the NATION, that the DNC was ever actually hacked at all. The evidence shows that, based on download times, the purloined e-mails  were downloaded to a portable storage device and taken out the door. Therefore, I doubt Guccifer 2.0  or anyone else hacked the DNC. I explained this evolution in my thinking, under oath, to the House Intelligence Committee. I have also said it publicly elsewhere.  As for “He actually released them several weeks ago. They got no traction. He took them to Assange. Well, Assange put them out to WikiLeaks.” This was a tip I got from a Guardian reporter. Probably also false. 

As to whether Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian, I note this is the claim of the Intelligence Community who claim he (?) left digital fingerprints of its hacks which prove it was a Russian. The WikiLeaks disclosures (Vault 7) show Intelligence Services have the technology to make it appear a hack came from somewhere other than where it came from. I also question why Guccifer 2.0 would be using a software program registered to a DNC staffer. The point is moot. I no longer believe Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC. I noted this in my sworn testimony.

Hopefully in the lawsuit in which I am being sued by the DNC we will finally get discovery to inspect the servers which the FBI was never allowed to inspect to determine if they were hacked at all. My attorney’s have asked that they be preserved for discovery.

Please reflect in your reporting that my 24-word exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 took place after the DNC material had already been published so based on timing, context, and the actual content the DM exchange provides no evidence of collusion, collaboration, or coordination. This exchange was gratuitously included in the DOJ indictment of 12 Russian Intelligence Agents although Rod Rosenstein noted at the time “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.” As CNBC put it, “Rosenstein also highlighted that Friday’s indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in the Russian operation.”

2. An Aug 18, 2016 call in which Roger claimed to be in touch with Julian Assange, according to Jason Sullivan, the social media specialist who helped Stone organize the calls. He turned in a recording of this call to the special counsel’s office in May and has been contacted again recently about it. He described it to the Journal but has not turned over audio yet. 

This is completely consistent with what I said to the SW Broward Republican Organization in the same time period. I clarified it soon thereafter publicly, in dozens of interviews, as well as under oath before the House Intelligence Committee. My communication was not direct. As I told the House Committee Randy Credico was the person who told me Assange would drop a bombshell in October. Randy repeated it endlessly over a 50-day period.

He confirmed it to third parties who the Washington Post reported on, who you interviewed, but whose exculpatory information you chose to ignore. You printed Randy’s claim that he could not have been my source in late July because he did not meet Assange until late August, but you omitted from your report his 30 year relationship with the WikiLeaks lawyer who arranged his eventual meeting with Assange. Credico never said he knew the source or content of the data dump only that it would be in October.

Credico was a Sanders supporter and hated the Clintons over the 1994 Crime bill. He later supported Jill Stein. I revealed his name to the House Committee only reluctantly because I feared the professional reprisal in the progressive community where he worked. He’s changed his story more times than Hillary Clinton has changed her hair-styles. I don’t even think the Special Counsel believes Randy’s lies.

We are also reporting that these calls came during a period of time in which Roger claimed contact with Assange multiple times: 

-On Aug 4, Roger emailed Nunberg and said he dined with his new pal Julian Assange last nite. **we report that Roger said the email was a joke, as the Journal previously reported.

I supplied airline tickets, a hotel receipt, and restaurant receipts to show I was in Los Angles on the very day Sam said I was in London. The Post article misquoted me…After trying for 40 minutes to get Sam Nunberg off the phone on a Friday night, he asked if I had plans for the weekend.

I replied “I think I’ll fly to London and have dinner with Julian Assange.” It was a throwaway line. It was schtick. When I realized Sam actually believed it, I milked the joke in a subsequent, well publicized e-mail. Don’t you think Mr. Mueller has access to Customs records that would show if I left the country in 2016? 

-Four days later, in an appearance before the Southwest Broward Republican Organization,  said: “I actually have communicated with Assange.

Precisely what I said previously and clarified as detailed above. I never said I had direct communication with Assange and I clarified it was thru a back channel. Just because I dramatized the facts for a partisan audience does not mean I fabricated them. Credico was my confirming source.

“I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation,…..

The prediction regarding the Clinton Foundation is based on an e-mail as detailed here. 

This is the so-called second source as reflected in my e-mails. My tip is based on the content of this e-mail which Charles Ortel has confirmed the authenticity of. Ironically it turns out to be wrong .

…….but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”

Proving I had no idea what would be published in October.

-on Aug 12, Stone told Alex Jones that he was hacked after it became publicly known that I had communicated with them. 

So over a 10 day period I said the same thing three times and clarified it the first time a reporter asked about it. In all cases the communications I refer to are through a third party- Credico. Assange and WikiLeaks have both said publicly that they had no communication with me other than the Twitter DM I provided to the House Committee which proves nothing of substance, and irresponsibly the Atlantic edited when it was leaked to them and they published.

When Assange did not do a data dump on Oct 1. Credico told me that Assange had demurred on October 1st because of the concerns of his lawyers including Daniel Ellsberg, about threats to Assange’s life if he went forward with the disclosures. Remember, Hillary Clinton actually advocated the use of a drone strike to kill Assange in London, in order to prevent the disclosure of what she knew he had.

Credico told me that Secretary of State John Kerry had astonishingly gone to British Prime Minister Teresa May and asked that Britain rescind its diplomatic recognition of Ecuador for one day, stripping Assange of his asylum, so that US and British authorities could storm the Embassy and seize Assange. Credico also told me that Kerry had convened a conference call of the heads of state of the Latin American countries surrounding Ecuador to demand they assert pressure on the Ecuadorian government to turn over the embattled journalist, warning that there would be harsh treatment for those nations that did not help the US government in this regard. 

Credico predicted that Assange “would do the right thing” and in fact Assange announced the schedule of a series of forthcoming disclosures in his October 1st remarks, which was little noticed by the press, but look it up, it happened. He would follow the schedule he outlined to devastating effect.

This has been reported on so many times, I can’t believe the WSJ have any interest in rehashing it again.

We are also reporting:

-On August 21, Roger tweeted, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary.”

**We report that Stone says this was in reference to the lobbying activities of John Podesta and his brother Tony.

My tweet is based on the Aug 14th Breitbart Story that identified Tony Podesta’s work for the same Ukrainian Political Party as Manafort and the extensive report on the Podesta brothers’ lucrative Russian business deals in gas, aluminum, uranium and banking.  All of this was brought to my attention by Jerry Corsi who subsequently sent me a very well researched memo on their dealings that I planned to feed to certain reporters. I was going to be the one parsing out Corsi’s report, I was going to make it their time in the barrel.  I later wrote a piece about their Russian Bank deal.

To be clear Dr. Corsi never told me Podesta’s e-mail had been acquired or gave any e-mails from those eventually published or indicated that he had seen them.  E-Mail and text messages confirm events as outlined above and make no reference to Podesta’s e-mail being acquired.

We also say that Roger has said he never had information about the content, source or ultimate timing of WikiLeaks’ disclosures.

Let’s get it exactly right…

“I had no advance knowledge about the acquisition and publication of John Podesta’s e-mail.”

“I had no advance notice of the source content or exact release date of the WikiLeaks DNC disclosures. I received nothing including hacked e-mails from Guccifer 2.0, the Russians, WikiLeaks or anyone else and therefore passed on nothing to Donald Trump and the Trump campaign or anyone else. My testimony in front of the House Committee was accurate and truthful.”

What I am guilty of is using publicly available information and a solid tip to bluff, posture, hype and punk the Democrats on Twitter. This is called Politics. It’s not illegal “ My testimony to the House Intelligence Committee was 100% accurate and truthful despite claims by hyper partisans who enjoy congressional immunity from lawsuit. 

 REREAD THIS. And to recap… 

In September I was told by former Congressman Walter Fauntroy that he had brokered an agreement between Quadaffi and the Clinton State Department for Quadaffi to abdicate and gains safe passage out of the country. I was supplied a signed agreement which appeared to be genuine. I noticed an interview in which Assange said he had documents reflecting disagreement over whether to take out Quaddafi. I asked Credico if he knew if they had been posted. Why would I ask Randy if I was in communication with Assange in 2016? His response “I can’t be asking them for things every day….I’ll ask one of the lawyers.” He provided nothing. You characterize this as “digging dirt”. I call it legitimate political research. Congressman Fauntroy is a credible source and his story detailed.