#JullianAsange

[populistmedia]

Exclusive: Wall Street Journal Frames Roger Stone

In a public trial in the media, where journalists are acting as judge and jury for conservative activists and conservative political pundits, the Wall Street Journal has admitted they break the law by printing leaks from a taxpayer-funded government office with unlimited resources, and they like making money on denying an American his civil liberties. In an exchange with Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, Roger Stone said,"This has been reported on so many times, I can’t believe the WSJ have any interest in rehashing it again." The media's current political target: Stone, a longtime friend of President Donald J. Trump, and Conservative/ Libertarian political icon. THAT IS CALLED A "LEAK" "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter," reported Shelby Holliday, in the Wall Street Journal on Oct.19, 2018. Read Full Article  Their next target:  Could be you. Have you volunteered for a candidate or campaign?  Are you a member of the GOP?  Have you started a media company or blog?  Have you posted about your political choices on social media? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you should care about this story. DEAR POLITICAL PUNDITS AND ACTIVISTS Imagine a world where you get an email from the Wall Street Journal framing you with treason, claiming they have proof of your criminal collision because they heard from the Top Cop in the land that you are basically guilty and they are going to publish the story to the world, after months of targeted harassment against you and your family. Scared enough to stay out of politics yet? Do you know who would be brave enough to print your side of that story, and stare down the monolith of the Leftist Mainstream Media in your defense, and in defense of American Civil Liberties? Populist Media is here for you, just remember. TIMELINE- FOR THE RECORD- ACCORDING TO ROGER STONE: According to Stone the following is his rebuttal to the constant Leaks to the Media and their coordinated drumbeat, declaring his guilt (without a trail) and what he calls "recycled fake news".  This is his timeline, which the Wall Street Journal has received and which Populist Media has received. STATEMENT ABOUT ADVANCE NOTICE OF HILLARY EMAILS TO WSJ BY STONE: " 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 releases 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," Stone told the Wall Street Journal. STATEMENT ABOUT GUCCIFER TO WSJ BY STONE: "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 attorneys 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." STATEMENT ABOUT SAM NUNBERG CLAIM TO WSJ BY STONE: "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." STATEMENT ABOUT ASSANGE CONNECTION TO WSJ BY STONE "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." STATEMENT ABOUT CLINTON FOUNDATION TO WSJ BY STONE The prediction regarding the Clinton Foundation is based on an e-mail as detailed here (click link) https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/22/roger-stone-WikiLeaks-claim-reporter-email/ 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. STATEMENT ABOUT ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF PODESTA EMAILS TO WSJ BY STONE "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." FULL STATEMENT TO WSJ BY STONE "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  https://stonecoldtruth.com/randy-me-truth-about-WikiLeaks/ 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. 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." END OF STONE STATEMENTS Remember that Stone has been banned from Twitter and other platforms, so his reach is intentionally reduced in an organized media attack on his reputation. BEGINNING OF PERSECUTION https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1056979130070302720 https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1056922808201166848 https://twitter.com/LawWorksAction/status/1056931906804219904 and so on and so forth... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IF YOU PROMISE TO ROLL OVER THE PRESIDENT Unless the Media is publishing constant political attacks, dressed up as journalism.   Unless they are given authority to libel your name, brand and reputation.  Back in the old days, Americans had "civil liberties" and the right to a fair court trial.  The American Mainstream Media, including the Wall Street Journal, has pitched that old-fashioned notion. And American activists and pundits are helpless to stop them.  Unless we are brave enough to make a stand like Stone has done.           Read the full article

[populistmedia]

Wall Street Journal Spits At The Republic And Denies Roger Stone, Activists, Pundits Civil Liberities

In a public trial in the media, where journalists are acting as judge and jury for conservative activists and conservative political pundits, the Wall Street Journal has admitted they break the law by printing leaks from a taxpayer-funded government office with unlimited resources, and they like making money on denying an American his civil liberties. In an exchange with Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, Roger Stone said,"This has been reported on so many times, I can’t believe the WSJ have any interest in rehashing it again." The media's current political target: Stone, a longtime friend of President Donald J. Trump, and Conservative/ Libertarian political icon. THAT IS CALLED A "LEAK" "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter," reported Shelby Holliday, in the Wall Street Journal on Oct.19, 2018. Read Full Article  Their next target:  Could be you. Have you volunteered for a candidate or campaign?  Are you a member of the GOP?  Have you started a media company or blog?  Have you posted about your political choices on social media? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you should care about this story. DEAR POLITICAL PUNDITS AND ACTIVISTS Imagine a world where you get an email from the Wall Street Journal framing you with treason, claiming they have proof of your criminal collision because they heard from the Top Cop in the land that you are basically guilty and they are going to publish the story to the world, after months of targeted harassment against you and your family. Scared enough to stay out of politics yet? Do you know who would be brave enough to print your side of that story, and stare down the monolith of the Leftist Mainstream Media in your defense, and in defense of American Civil Liberties? Populist Media is here for you, just remember. TIMELINE- FOR THE RECORD- ACCORDING TO ROGER STONE: According to Stone the following is his rebuttal to the constant Leaks to the Media and their coordinated drumbeat, declaring his guilt (without a trail) and what he calls "recycled fake news".  This is his timeline, which the Wall Street Journal has received and which Populist Media has received. STATEMENT ABOUT ADVANCE NOTICE OF HILLARY EMAILS TO WSJ BY STONE: " 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 releases 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," Stone told the Wall Street Journal. STATEMENT ABOUT GUCCIFER TO WSJ BY STONE: "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 attorneys 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." STATEMENT ABOUT SAM NUNBERG CLAIM TO WSJ BY STONE: "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." STATEMENT ABOUT ASSANGE CONNECTION TO WSJ BY STONE "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." STATEMENT ABOUT CLINTON FOUNDATION TO WSJ BY STONE The prediction regarding the Clinton Foundation is based on an e-mail as detailed here (click link) https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/22/roger-stone-WikiLeaks-claim-reporter-email/ 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. STATEMENT ABOUT ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF PODESTA EMAILS TO WSJ BY STONE "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." FULL STATEMENT TO WSJ BY STONE "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  https://stonecoldtruth.com/randy-me-truth-about-WikiLeaks/ 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. 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." END OF STONE STATEMENTS Remember that Stone has been banned from Twitter and other platforms, so his reach is intentionally reduced in an organized media attack on his reputation. BEGINNING OF PERSECUTION https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1056979130070302720 https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1056922808201166848 https://twitter.com/LawWorksAction/status/1056931906804219904 and so on and so forth... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IF YOU PROMISE TO ROLL OVER THE PRESIDENT Unless the Media is publishing constant political attacks, dressed up as journalism.   Unless they are given authority to libel your name, brand and reputation.  Back in the old days, Americans had "civil liberties" and the right to a fair court trial.  The American Mainstream Media, including the Wall Street Journal, has pitched that old-fashioned notion. And American activists and pundits are helpless to stop them.  Unless we are brave enough to make a stand like Stone has done.           Read the full article