Rick Gates Got Sent Two Key Jerome Corsi Posts

Last year, as Mueller was managing the failed Jerome Corsi cooperation deal, I did a series of posts suggesting that Corsi and Stone seemed to have gotten advanced information about the John Podesta email dump. I argued that, in part, because the two started crafting an elaborate Matryoshka cover-up by the end of August to excuse away Stone’s “time in the barrel tweet.” More importantly, Corsi wrote a piece picking up what the two men had been plotting in August on October 6, seemingly anticipating John Podesta documents that would only be dumped on October 11. In other words, Corsi and Stone seemed to know by mid-August what WikiLeaks would drop in October.

I posted the first of those posts on October 22.

Three days later, Mueller’s team interviewed Rick Gates (PDF 39). According to the headings in the interview, which were dates, the interview traced the key milestones of the WikiLeaks dump:

  • June 12, 2016 to July 22, 2016
  • Post July 22, 2016 WikiLeaks Releases
  • October 4, 2016
  • October 7, 2016
  • [Redacted]

Much of the content below that last redacted heading is redacted, but it’s clear the section as a whole relates to the two Corsi pieces that bookend my theory that he and Stone got the files ahead of time.

** Gates was shown an email [redacted] containing the subject line “Trump adviser: WikiLeaks plotting email dump to derail Hillary” **

Gates did not recall receiving the aforementioned email.

[redacted]

** Gates was shown an email [redacted] containing the subject line “Russia? Look who’s really in bed with Moscow — Podesta & Clinton Foundation money-laundering with Russia” **

[redacted]

The FOIAed backup for this interview includes the emails by which the articles were sent.

They obscure the date that the first one was sent, though it was posted on August 15; the second, which Corsi published on October 6, got sent 15 hours later, so just before mid-day on October 7. (Steve Bannon’s assistant Alexandra Preate sent Stone a text at 6:30PM telling him “Well done,” presumably for the actual WikiLeaks releases).

But it sure seems like the campaign was in the loop on some of this.

I’m fairly certain none of this will be aired at the Stone trial. The government doesn’t even plan to enter Stone’s “time in a barrel” tweet into evidence and there’s nothing in the draft exhibit list that looks like it could be these emails. Plus, much of their case seems designed not to have to rely on Corsi.

But it sure seems to have been of interest last year.

image_print
11 replies
  1. missing george carlin says:

    I greatly appreciate the efforts of Marcy and the Gang at helping make sense of this disgusting mess.

    I don’t understand how the ‘time in the barrel’ email doesn’t come into play here?!? Isn’t this one of the most important pieces of obvious evidence that Stone (and hence DJT) was in the loop on Russia/Wikileaks?

    Thanks again and sorry if I’m missing something obvious!

    • emptywheel says:

      The way to prove Stone lied is to focus on how much he was interacting with Trump about his efforts, not his public tweet. The tweet only focuses on Corsi.

    • emptywheel says:

      Zero sign of that. More sign, probably, of Mueller’s team designing this prosecution to be able to air as much dirty laundry as possible. Andrew Miller testified to another GJ, not Mueller’s one, so this might just be a stepping stone prosecution to get to another one.

  2. klynn says:

    IANAL
    If ABJ senses the best prosecutorial arguments are not being made, will/can she address this?

    And, are you suggesting the Gov argument is holding back on evidence? Or is it evidence that is just not needed?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      No, not really. And who knows.

      It’s early days and it’s legitimate to keep a prosecution narrow. But it would be a mistake generally to give Bill Barr the benefit of any doubt. He’s made clear he deserves none.

  3. Michael Keenan says:

    Here is George Webb at the trial of Stone and providing on the ground investigative reporting going over opening defense response.

Comments are closed.