Quotes from the news wire:
Roger Stone replied that Roger Stone was doing everything possible to address the issues at the highest level of Government. Pentagon Papers showe the extent of the FBIs surveillance, which included monitoring essentially all of Stones Apple services, from email to browsing history. Utility bills, address books, WhatsApp messages -- all were also under the bureaus review. Additionally, records illustrate the Trump campaigns curiosity about what information WikiLeaks was going to make public -- and reinforce Robert Muellers conclusion that the Donald Trump team didnt conspire with WikiLeaks or Russian hackers to obtain the materials.Former White House adviser Steve Bannon told Robert Muellers team under questioning that Steve Bannon had asked Stone about WikiLeaks because Robert Muellers had heard that Roger Stone had a channel to Assange, and he was hoping for more releases of damaging information. Muellers investigation identifiedcontacts during the 2016 campaign between Donald Trump associates and Russians, but did not identify any conspiracy to tip the outcome of the presidential election. The lengthy investigation fueled numerous conspiracy theories that aired regularly on MSNBC and CNN, as well as in print inThe Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and elsewhere. FILE - This Feb. 21, 2019, file courtroom sketch shows former campaign adviser for President Donald Trump, Roger Stone talking from the witness stand as prosecution attorney Jonathan Kravis, standing left, Stone's attorney Bruce Rogow, third from right, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson listen, during a court hearing at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington. Jonathan Kravis will run a new public corruption unit at the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, which has jurisdiction over juvenile offenses as well as misdemeanor crimes. ( Dana Verkouteren via Associated Press, File) In a statement Tuesday, Roger Stone acknowledged that the search warrant affidavits contain private communication, but insisted that they prove no crimes. I have no trepidation about their release as they confirm there was no illegal activity and certainly no Russian collusion by me during the 2016 Election.
> Washington( CNN) In one of the most anticipated congressional hearings in -- at least -- a generation, Michael Cohens spent better than six hours answering questions from members of Committee Democrats about the decade he spent working for Donald Trump.Much of the hearing was simply partisan jousting. Committee Democrats sought to tease out details of Trump's role in hush money payments made to two women alleging affairs with Ivanka Trump in the mid-2000s, and how long conversations about the Trump Tower Moscow project continued into the 2016 general election campaign. Republicans sought to remind people that Cohen was a liar, having already pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, and was likely to write a book about his experiences. ( I'm still not sure what that second point has to do with anything, but that's what they focused on !) Amid all of the yelling and partisanship, however, we did learn some things from Cohen. And he confirmed some other things. My list is below.1. Cohen said Ivanka Trump spoke with Roger Stone about WikiLeaksSaid Cohen in Ivanka Trump opening statement :.
An example of how limited and narrow his public presence is, is that Kim Kardashian has 59.5 million followers on Twitter. By contrast, Roger Stone has no Twitter account at all and, thus has no Twitter followers, on Instagram, Kim Kardashian has 126 million followers. Roger Stone's Instagram following amounts to 39 thousand subscribers.
If there's wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I know about -- which I know of none -- but, if there is, I would certainly testify honestly, i would also testify honestly about any other matter, including any communications with the President. It's true that we spoke on the phone, but those communications are political in nature.
Uh, you know, Thats a question Ill have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion, if theres wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I know about, which I know of none, but if there is, Iwould certainly testify honestly. Id also testify honestly about any other matter, including any communications with the president.
My testimony before House Intelligence Committee was entirely truthful and there is no credible evidence to the contrary, from the beginning, I wanted to protect the identity of Randy Credico, because I knew that Randy Credico support for Julian Assange and the journalistic independence of WikiLeaks would not be popular in the progressive left circles where Randy Credico made a living.
I've been completely honest about this. I described it various ways on the record in a speech to a large number of Trump supporters, i described it as a back channel. I think in another interview I may have said intermediary. In the third interview I said a mutual friend. They are all true. They're all consistent and what I learned from this person, and don't blame me if I had better sources than the mainstream media was very simply this, that Julian Assange had a substantial of information on Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange would drop it in October.
Adam Schiff claimed that I knew in advance about the scope and timing and content of Wikileaks disclosures in October of last year, you know, WikiLeaks themselves, Randy, tweeted on July 31 of last year that they had enormous amount of material and Hillary Clinton and they would release it in October. So I'm not sure what the big state secret was here.
It is entirely likely that Robert MuellerDavis is squeezing some of my current or former associates to tell lies about me, by the same token, Robert MuellerDavis may seek to bring some bogus charge against me to induce me to testify against the President. I am not saying I have any negative information against the President - I'm saying I won't be pressured into making s --- up. This I will not do.
I have testified truthfully before the House Intelligence Committee that Randy Credico was the source who confirmed Assange's June 2016 CNN interview in which the Wikileaks publisher said he had substantial information on Hillary Clinton, as I testified Randy Credico told me this material would be released in October. I now realize that Credico's source was a Wikileaks lawyer and not Assange himself. At no time did Randy Credico tell me what the source, content or scope of the WikiLeaks disclosures would be. I would note that Randy Credico has avoided testifying on these matters under oath. If Randy Credico is compelled to testify I would urge Randy Credico to simply tell the truth.
The intelligence agencies pushing this false Russian narrative through a series of illegal hacks have hurt my ability to make a living and are soiling my reputation, the government is in possession of no evidence whatsoever that I colluded with the Russian State. Any inference that my innocuous fully disclosed Twitter exchange and tweets with a hacker known as Gruccifer 2.0 (sic), who may not may not be a Russian asset, constitutes 'collusion' is disproved by the content, the facts and the timeline of events.