Stone Blasts WikiLeaks Smear
Image Credits: Justin Tallis / Getty .
The incomplete and carefully edited DM exchanges between me and a spokesman for WikiLeaks cited by The Atlantic prove conclusively that I had no advance knowledge of the content or source of WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.
I had merely confirmed Julian Assange’s public claim that he had information on Hillary Clinton and he would publish it.
The exchange provided to the Atlantic is incomplete and ridiculously out of context.
The true copy of this exchange provided many months ago to the House Intelligence Committee demonstrates I had no ‘collaboration” with WikiLeaks.
Assange himself said in an interview with Amy Goodman that I never tweeted anything he or WikiLeaks hadn’t said or written publicly.
I have never claimed otherwise.
As John Podhoretz of the New York Post said this morning on Morning Joe, even the truncated direct mail exchange obtained and published by the Atlantic clears me, he said it was exculpatory.
To clarify, my mention in a Florida speech of a “back channel to Assange” is merely a reference to confirming a source who told me, consistent with Assange’s public statements, that WikiLeaks did indeed have material embarrassing to Hillary and would publish.
While I initially declined to identify this confirming source to the Committee because I feared professional reprisal against him, I ultimately provided his name to the Committee at the strong urging of Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Randy Credico, then of WBAI in New York confirmed that WikiLeaks did have material devastating to Hillary and WikiLeaks would publish it in October.
Assange himself had said this publicly.
Credico was, as I feared, terminated from his job at the legendary progressive radio station.
Credico’s claim that this predates his first on-air interview with Assange is irrelevant as Credico had other contacts with WikiLeaks.
To be clear Credico, with whom I have worked in the struggle for drug law reform, never said who confirmed this at WikiLeaks or indicated he knew the source or content of the material.
When Assange scheduled a press conference on October 4th, Credico told me Assange’s lawyers, including Daniel Ellsberg, had urged him to delay the release of the material.
As I consider Assange to be a journalist and WikiLeaks to be a news organization and a repository of information, I reject unproven claims that they are Russian assets thus, there would be nothing illegal about Credico’s communication with them, however limited.
I note that I addressed these issues extensively under oath before the House Intelligence Committee while Mr. Credico elected to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
The reporter for The Atlantic , Natasha Bertrand, said in a text message that she was told I gave a screenshot of this exchange in particular to a friend.
This is false, I shared the true exchange only with my lawyers and the Committee.
The content of the exchange with WikiLeaks shows neither any claim by me to have any information beyond what Assange himself had said publicly and reiterates the statement by WikiLeaks that I had not communicated with them prior to the release of the DNC emails that were both accurate and so damaging to Hillary.
My frustration that whoever is manning the WikiLeaks Twitter direct messages is unaware that I had confirmed Assange’s claim to have Clinton material is also reflected.
That was what I meant when I said WikiLeaks “leaks.”