Randy Credico Refuses to Answer Whether Roger Stone Called Him about an Assange Pardon on November 9, 2016

As I wrote back in April, the available evidence indicates that Roger Stone reached out to WikiLeaks lawyer Margaret Kunstler just seven days after the election. Randy Credico testified in Stone’s trial that “some time” after the election, Stone reached out and said he needed to talk to Kunstler about a pardon.

A. Well, sometime after the election, he wanted me to contact Mrs. Kunstler. He called me up and said that he had spoken to Judge Napolitano about getting Julian Assange a pardon and needed to talk to Mrs. Kunstler about it. So I said, Okay. And I sat on it. And I told her — I told her — she didn’t act on it. And then, eventually, she did, and they had a conversation.

A warrant affidavit released in April reveals that on November 15, 2016, Stone texted Kunstler with a link to use to download Signal. Kunstler responded,  saying she would call Stone.

Additionally, text messages recovered from Stone’s iCloud account revealed that on or about November 15, 2016, Stone sent an attorney with the ability to contact Julian Assange a link to download the Signal application. 15 Approximately fifteen minutes after sending the link, Stone texted the attorney, “I’m on signal just dial my number.” The attorney responded, “I’ll call you.”

15 This attorney was a close friend of Credico’s and was the same friend Credico emailed on or about September 20, 2016 to pass along Stone’s request to Assange for emails connected to the allegations against then-candidate Clinton related to her service as Secretary of State.

These stories are somewhat inconsistent (when Credico first explained the timing of this to me, he said Stone’s call happened before the end of 2016). Credico says that first he “sat on it.” And then, after he told Kunstler that Stone wanted to talk to her, “she didn’t act on it.” Only after Credico sat on it for some time and Kunstler also didn’t act immediately, “eventually, she did” act on it.

There’s not a whole lot of time for Credico to sit on a Stone request and Kunstler to not act on it after Credico passed it on in the seven day span between the time Donald Trump got elected and this affidavit says Stone and Kunstler first spoke.

One way to explain the discrepancy, though, is if Roger Stone called Randy Credico the day after the election to start talking about a pardon. That’d leave time for Credico to “sit on it,” and Kunstler to not act on it before, “eventually, she did.”

Of course, that would mean that on the same day that the WikiLeaks account DMed Roger Stone (having chastised him three weeks earlier for reaching out), and said, “Happy? We are now more free to communicate,” Stone called (or texted) Credico and said he wanted to approach Margaret Kunstler about a pardon. In any case, it had to have happened shortly thereafter.

It would mean that hours after Trump won the election, with help from Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks Twitter account wrote Stone and said they were more free to communicate, which would mean (if this indeed happened the same day), Stone immediately reached out to Credico, saying he wanted to talk to Kunstler about a pardon.

Randy Credico and I just got into a bit of a Twitter spat because I quoted something else he said at Stone’s trial. That led me to ask him for more details about this pardon dangle, the first (known) one. After Credico said he did not recant on his testimony and said he had nothing to hide, he then dodged and dodged and dodged, refusing to answer either of two questions: 1) when Stone first called him or 2) whether it was on November 9.

So in spite of my persistence, Randy Credico refused to answer basic questions about something that Trump also refused to answer about–pardon dangles during the transition period (though Trump also professed memory failure going back into the election).

Whatever date Stone actually called Credico, by all appearances Julian Assange gave the President’s rat-fucker a green light to reach out and Stone immediately set about pursuing a pardon for Assange.

And WikiLeaks would like to distract you with the pardon dangle from the suspected Russian asset, instead.

Trump’s rat-fucker started paying off Assange’s election assistance immediately after the election, and Donald Trump won’t deny that that started before votes were even cast.

48 replies
  1. pseudonymous in nc says:

    There is nothing more off-limits than the transition, is there? It’s where all the paranoia about “spying” is especially focused, and where the assertions of privilege have been most fervent and bullshit, perhaps because it’s where they all immediately leaned into the quids for the quos.

  2. Ginevra diBenci says:

    Marcy, the next time I need to interrogate an evasive/hostile subject, I’m going to have your Twitter exchange with Credico up my sleeve to use as a model of persistence, patience, and nimble wit. For wannabe journalists, that is how you do it. I wish I could always keep my cool in like fashion.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “Julian Assange gave the President’s rat-fucker a green light to reach out and Stone immediately set about pursuing a pardon for Assange.” Shirley, the not yet-president also gave his ratfucker a green light to talk to Assange and to pursue a pardon that would benefit Trump.

    Stone, at least, knew that Assange had helped Trump “win” and that even ratfuckers are better off paying their debts. Not disappointing people or giving them a reason to talk to the press is probably a good idea. Not so Trump, who pays his debts about as often as he passes by a McDonald’s without stopping for a quick one.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Once he’s no longer president, that would almost be enjoyable. He should face consequences for once in his life. What’s frightening is what he will have done as president, and how little of that we’ll never know about.

        • ducktree says:

          Whether we we like or are prepared for it, we will be paying this bill-come-due for generations…

          Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent… omnes generaciones

        • timbo says:

          You assume that a lot that has been done by Twitler and his regime is not known. That actually seems to be less true as the days here roll by heading up to the election. Money laundering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion, it’s all in the public record at this point. Violations of the Hatch Act are obvious. Violations and unannounced abbrogations of various signed and ratified treaties, meddling in other countries elections as part of other schemes mentioned above. Activity soliciting interference in our elections from foreign countries and foreign citizens, etc… The use of the DOJ to target political opponents seems a simple conclusion to draw as well at this point… So I ask you, which crimes are you supposing haven’t yet been made obvious to a reasonable person yet?

      • misteranderson says:

        I’m coming from a place of curiosity & fantasy with this question. What would that look like? If Putin made sure Trump paid his debts? I guess I know it might look like it does now,ie Troop w/drawal, silence on the bounties, etc. What would “pay the price “ look like? I’ve read a biography of Putin’s childhood & I have no doubt of his capacity for violence & abuse.

  4. Rapier says:

    Some telling’s of this tale have Stone asking Assange to say Seth Rich was a WikiLeaks source. Now that would have been worth a pardon, and a fat bank account. I’m hoping that was a bridge too far for Julian so I’ll give him that. Absent the big payoff of a story saying the Seth RIch story was true, I mean really that story corroborated would have produced something akin to the Rapture among the Brethren, I don’t think Stone or then Trump would risk springing him without the big payoff because face it, half of Assange’s whole shtick is claiming loyalty to no one, Assange biting back months or even years in the future would seem a sure thing. Another plum story Stone et al would have liked from Assange was that no Russian’s were the source of the hacked files etc. I suppose that would be a big enough chit as well.

    • emptywheel says:

      Assange will yet have that opportunity: in one of the Rich suits (I think the brother), the defendant got an okay for letters rogatory to get Assange’s testimony in Belmarsh.

      • timbo says:

        On behalf of all us ‘couch lawyers’ the world ’round (ie NALs; das lazy Spuds du Monde), I thank you for that pedantical, esoteric, and gemmy phrase.

  5. Zinsky says:

    Nothing would give me greater pleasure than Roger Stone finally getting a taste of justice. Except maybe seeing Rudy Giuliani being perp walked into federal court for sentencing!

    In that vein, I wonder if the empty wheel crowd has any insights into the latest Lev Parnas charges that were filed last Friday? The story was almost not covered by the American media.

    Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/y328jlc7

  6. Adam says:

    I love these detail-rich, dense posts from Marcy, but some of them (like this one) go over my head. Can someone dumb it down for me? Obviously, the suspicion here is that Trump, through Stone, was offering a pardon to Assange in exchange for something, presumably a public statement by Assange that the source of the DNC emails was non-Russian. Trump either professed amnesia or claimed privilege with respect to just about *anything* during the transition, and Stone claimed to have never discussed such an arrangement with Trump. This was almost certainly a lie, but we lack evidence inconsistent with this claim, so Stone wasn’t charge for this particular lie. Credico’s role, which we know from evidence and testimony, was to put Stone in touch with Assange’s attorney.

    What I don’t get, however, is why the conversation happening on Nov 9 vs, for example, Nov 12, is all that significant. Obviously, after the election, the prospect of a pardon was more likely to materialize, but Credico already claimed it happened after the election. What’s the big deal here? Why would Credico lie about *this* detail?

  7. Rugger9 says:

    As part of the circus, we had a report yesterday that a ricin letter was sent to the WH for DJT personally. It’s all over the place, but it seems too much like the Reichstag fire in its concept., and we do have the GOP people claiming “death threats” from Antifas that they never show. OTOH when our side gets theirs from the zoo containing Boogaloos, 4-chan and Q, the targets post them. So, perhaps this is something that AG Barr will use to “justify” a crackdown and DJT will use to “justify” postponing the election by executive order like he said he would yesterday in NC.

    We also had the scene in VA yesterday where MAGAs blocked early voters and held a rally at the polling place (both highly illegal) but I did not see where the local gendarmes hauled the lot in to jail. Hmmmmm…… Taken together it seems that DJT is inciting the RW violence which will get a blind eye from AG Barr until he can blame someone on the left, those DFHs.

    • P J Evans says:

      With the VA incident – the law says they have to stay 40 feet from the polling place. (In CA it’s 100 feet, which means it’s not worth it for the demonstrators.)

      • Rugger9 says:

        The distance is not as important as the fact these MAGA people were actively blocking the voters. Since I saw the social distancing markers that is a restricted access and (I’m sure it could be argued) part of the polling place boundaries.

      • J R in WV says:

        I think here in WV it’s now 300 feet, which means they’re nearly meaningless. Sometimes they give out free hotdogs, which isn’t worth associating with Republicans, but is OK if it’s union or Democratic organizers.

        I used to collect a dozen wrapped fairly plain dogs and take them in to the poll workers, I was usually there when no one else was there, before the Trump plague, in a very rural polling place. All completely anonymous as far as the source of the dogs.

        Once, late on a November afternoon I took a neighbor over to vote, after I voted early in the day. While Tommy was in casting a straight Democratic ticket, I saw a guy I was acquainted with sitting across the street from the high school, and wandered over to talk while waiting for Tom.

        Billy ran a garage nearby, he was sitting in his black PU truck. I told him I was waiting while Tom voted… it was coming on to dark and overcast and windy and chilly. Then Billy (an older guy despite the diminutive nickname) reached under his seat and pulled out a bottle of whiskey, which was so traditional, yet so illegal I had trouble maintaining a normal facial expression.

        He said something like “Well, business is over for the day now, you might as well have one of these to enjoy!” I just said thanks and slid it into my back pocket.

        After I dropped Tommy off at his home, a mile or so downstream from our farm, I showed the bottle to wife, and after some conversation, I called the US Attorney’s election fraud hot line and turned Billy in. Then we cracked the bottle open and enjoyed it, feeling pure and untouched by the election fraud attached to election day whiskey. It was inexpensive, but acceptable. This was probably in the late ’70s or early ’80s. Tommy has been dead for that long, was a big strong farm boy, ex submarine Navy vet, about my age.

        Glad to say the feds have choked this kind of shit off, finally. One thing they do now is in plea agreements, they make those pleading swear to never run for electoral office again.

    • Rugger9 says:

      The ricin letter came from some woman in Canada so it would be a stretch even for AG Barr to try to link that to Antifa.

      However, AG Barr did find time for designating NYC, Portland and Seattle as anarchy zones subject to “defunding” through DJT’s 02 SEP 2020 executive order. IMHO that ought to be enough to impeach both AG Barr and DJT since the (IIRC) Impoundment act precludes selective spending like this, and FWIW the 14th Amendment requires equal protection of the laws. However, the blatant political use (DC was spared based upon “a call from Mayor Bowser”, but we shall see if she really did call or DJT didn’t want a mess in front of his bunker …) of deciding winners and losers for purely political reasons can also be used against the red states when stuff happens there like hurricanes, tornados, floods, etc. down the road if this is allowed now.


      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        It might help Trump-Barr’s argument if there were such a thing as an “anarchist jurisdiction.” They just made the fucking thing up. Perhaps it’s a distraction from the fact that he has no legal authority to withhold funds from those cities, if Congress hasn’t legislated it.

        If this represents Trump’s willingness to cheat to steal the election – and he’s not done doing that – imagine WTF he will do when he feels he has accomplished that task. As a wag said on twtr, if you’re not familiar with the Reichstag fire, time to read up on it.

      • Rugger9 says:

        I see that Gov. DeSantis in FL has now put in motion yet another GOP wet dream where it is not actionable if a driver runs over someone in a “mob” involved in an un-permitted protest. Aside from who he really has in mind (i.e. there’s no justice for Heather Heyer in this bill) I would think that the same legal situation applies to those heavily armed RWNJs setting up roadblocks in OR hunting for “Antifa buses”. I would submit that any person (especially if Black) that executes their right under this proposal would be summarily executed on the nearest tree or crossbar.

        Also OT, it appears a decision is coming from the GOP AG in KY about whether to charge the cops that riddled Breonna Taylor with bullets and left her to bleed to death. I’m sure “qualified immunity” will be a large part of the decision not to prosecute, which has already been signaled by the Louisville Metro PD canceling time off and a state of emergency being declared. Violence will not solve the issue, but if all other avenues for redress are blocked off, what else do people have than the pitchforks?

      • Tom says:

        Re: the Quebec woman who mailed President Trump the ricin-laced letter. Not to justify her actions, but she was probably feeling what the majority of Canadians are currently feeling about the situation with our neighbour to the south. There’s a story in “The [Toronto] Star” today by Edward Keenan titled “Donald Trump has taken the U.S. down a dark path, and these Canadians are scared of where it leads”. Keenan refers to a survey taken this summer in which 79% of Canadians agreed with the statement: “I really worry that the United States is on the verge of chaos and this could have negative impacts on Canada.” Eighty percent of Canadians prefer a Biden victory in November.

        The big concern is the spillover effect, not just of the corona-virus (and we’re already having difficulty with an upsurge in new cases), but of everything else going on in the States right now. It was just a week or so ago that anti-maskers and QAnon supporters staged a demonstration in Montreal, and yesterday an anti-racism protest in Red Deer, Alberta was confronted and disrupted by a mob of angry white supremacists, including a group calling themselves the Sons of Odin, though some of them looked more like the Sons of Frito-Lay. The ripples of Trumpism just keep spreading.

        • soothsayer says:

          That Quebec woman is obviously a cuckoo, plus she crossed a line, and will now pay the price.

          As for how Canadians feel, well as I live state side, I am more integrated into US issues, but get a general gist of what Canadians think from speaking to my immediate family. My younger siblings being much more liberal are definitely concerned for my wifes and my well being with what is happening here. Whereas my older sibling and sig are very conservative, so perhaps not really Trump fans, but definitely drinking the conservative programs koolaid. My mother is historically conservative and has always been thoughtful on issues and would not like it if she really knew what was happening, but since a friend of hers put her on the naturalnews.com email newsletters, she is bombarded with ridiculous propaganda and now thinks that Trump is in fact a really good and a really nice person. Ha! She has no idea what is really going on here, which is fascinating to me. Sometimes, when she forwards me something, I get agita and try not to re-explain why it is in fact snake oil and propaganda. I feel horrible for her, but I respect her wishes to read what she chooses. I find these breitbart like sites, that specifically prey on the elderly to get them to buy crap by using disinfo, to be especially heinous.

          As to the other events in Quebec and Alberta, I think I recall that Rebel Media had been pushing for prior related events (not sure they push Qanon, God I hope they are not that far lost). They are sort of the breitbart north, as well as generally pushing alt-right bs. To your point, on spillover effect, I think this is what happened. I think with the blaze down here, and rebel, they share some reporters and reporting, and cross over to what breitbart and other alt right sites do, now including disinfo on Faux News and OANN. This seems to be the main inflection points. I in fact had a long discussion years ago, with my best friend in the RCMP executive, about how Rebel Media specifically are below the line and acting as bad actors and how can they seriously operate legitimately as they currently exist while pushing out disinfo that borders on hateful speech. Separately, discussed how other entities that seem to even be foreign influenced in Canada in terms of their parroting of Russian talking points (e.g. global research .ca). But of course, free speech, which though I understand, again I always ask, and think should always be asked, who funds all of these entities? Both Rebel and GR, as I couldn’t care less where they fall on the political spectrum, if they are pushing out disinfo, I want to know why, and possibly for whom.

          Also, separately, my best friends wife is in the RCMP equivalent of the Secret Service, but for the Canadian Prime Minister, and I am sure she too has her hands busy with some of of these radicals that are popping up, whatever the causes, and so I am certain these are risk vectors having multiple discussion points between the RCMP, FBI etc.

  8. klynn says:

    I’m just going to conclude Credico’s refusal to answer about the pardon dangle is an admission that it happened.

  9. Rugger9 says:

    OT, but we have a Dan Crenshaw sighting! Instead of beating DJT like a rug for his “suckers and losers” comments Dan has been going on about the horrors of mail-in voting, calling it “playing with fire” according to the Texas Tribune. Last September he was taken to the woodshed by a couple of other SEALs for letting DJT run roughshod over the Constitution we all swore to protect and defend. It seems money is involved in that change of heart…

    Give back the trident, Dan, if you won’t honor it and the oath you took.

  10. Rugger9 says:

    OT but the August filings are out and the gaps identified by Salon from July are in many cases still present. So, who is paying these campaign people and what are they expecting for the quid? Manafort’s case demonstrated the importance of knowing these things, as it involved foreign support (illegal) and coordination (also illegal) and we are seeing the outlines of that here.


    Judge Lagoa is conflicted as well, including being involved in Jason Miller’s suit and the Florida felon case. She’s not only a legal lightweight but a crook as well. Too bad Pam Bondi’s apparently not available. Amy Coney Barrett is just plain nuts.


  11. Arthur M. says:

    Hi all, I have a possible pulled thread from the Trump / Russia quilt for you to please consider based on everything we have learned about Trump’s communication patterns:

    Why would Trump have said , ‘I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?’ — what purpose could such a statement have served?

    IMO Trump was speaking directly to Putin, acknowledging his own indebtedness from past money-laundering — basically, he was pledging his allegiance to Putin despite Trump having been threatened in just such a way. Trump’s “shoot somebody” remark was also made at a time when the media was pressing him to condemn Putin’s extrajudicial killing of journalists and dissidents.

    In “shoot somebody on Fifth Ave.,” Trump seemed to be referencing the 2004 extrajudicial killing of a diamond jeweler who was one of the Russian cash buyers spending $100+ million on Trump property in early 2000’s — IMO it seems likely Putin had the guy gunned down on crowded Sixth Ave., in front of Fox News and two celebrities, to send a threatening message to Trump and others involved.

    Thank you for getting this far! Jim Comey is also involved, there are pictures. Please have a look and would be interested in any comments: https://dumplord.com/2020/09/22/why-did-trump-say-i-could-stand-in-the-middle-of-fifth-avenue-and-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters-ok-and-who-was-he-talking-to/

  12. wanderful says:

    Apologies for probably naive question: what reason does Credico have to lie about this interaction he had with Roger Stone? Why would Credico want to protect Stone? And, I imagine, Trump, by extension?

  13. Tom says:

    The official position of the GOP now seems to be, “We’ll have to declare Donald Trump the winner on election night before all the votes are counted, otherwise people will think the election was rigged.”

Comments are closed.