The Wall Street Journal has reviewed emails revealing that Donald Trump’s longtime ally and former campaign adviser Roger Stone personally sought out dirt on Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through an intermediary.
In a Sept. 18, 2016, message, Mr. Stone urged an acquaintance who knew Mr. Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Mrs. Clinton’s alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was secretary of state, referring to her by her initials.
“Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30–particularly on August 20, 2011,” Mr. Stone wrote to Randy Credico, a New York radio personality who had interviewed Mr. Assange several weeks earlier.
Credico wrote back suggesting that whatever information WikiLeaks had was likely already posted to the site, but Stone was persistent. “Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have ???” Stone replied.
In another email, Mr. Credico then asked Mr. Stone to give him a “little bit of time,” saying he thought Mr. Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Mr. Credico wrote: “That batch probably coming out in the next drop…I can’t ask them favors every other day .I asked one of his lawyers…they have major legal headaches riggt now..relax.”
Collusion. It’s not even a matter of eagerly accepting “dirt” from a hostile foreign agent à la Don Jr., it’s a matter of seeking it out. Stone had claimed in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that he “merely wanted confirmation” that Assange had dirt on Clinton.
Keep in mind that current Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo branded WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service” while he was serving as Trump’s CIA director last year.
UPDATE: First came collusion, then the cover up: “Per Schiff, these emails between Stone and Credico were not provided to congressional investigators.”
Credico told the Journal that he never actually forwarded any of Stone’s messages to Assange and Stone denied ever getting anything from WikiLeaks.
“I never had possession or access to any Clinton emails or records,” Mr. Stone said, adding that his testimony before the House committee was “complete and accurate.”
But Stone has worked diligently in recent interviews to define WikiLeaks as a sterling-quality journalistic outfit. Here’s part of what Stone told MSNBC in early March about his interactions with WikiLeaks.
Say this about Julian Assange. I reject the idea that he’s a Russian asset. I reject the idea that Wikileaks is a Russian front. I think that he’s a journalist, a courageous journalist, and frankly his track record for accuracy and authenticity is superior than “The New York Times” or “The Washington post.” […]
…for it to be a treasonous act, Assange would have to be provably a Russian asset, and Wikileaks would have to be a Russian front and I do not believe that’s the case. (emphasis added)
Sure sounds like someone who thinks he committed a treasonous act by specifically soliciting dirt from a hostile foreign actor that could be weaponized in the 2016 campaign.