Robert Mueller’s probe crashed and burned in large part because the FBI and the prosecutors were convinced erroneously that I had personal contact with Julian Assange that permitted me to introduce Roger Stone to WikiLeaks.
If I had introduced Roger Stone to Julian Assange, the prosecutors believed, this introduction would have permitted Mr. Stone, who was in touch by telephone with then-candidate Donald Trump, “to collude” with WikiLeaks to time the release of Podesta emails in October 2016 so as to cause maximum damage to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
In my 40-hour ordeal, the prosecutors from the Office of the Special Counsel also made clear they believed the Trump campaign had convinced Russia to steal John Podesta’s emails and give them to WikiLeaks for publication. So, the hypothesis Mr. Mueller was trying to prove was that the “Russia collusion” link was Assange-Corsi-Stone-Trump — a linkage that I never caused to happen.
Now, instead of demanding that Attorney General William Barr turn over all records from Mr. Mueller’s Office of Special Counsel, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, New York Democrat, would be well advised to simply read my book, “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt.’”
That book is the only first-person, insider narrative to be published on the Mueller probe. It proves that I was a key witness — a linchpin to Mr. Mueller’s “Russian collusion” narrative the prosecutors were sure would establish the ability to charge Donald Trump for treason.
As the book makes clear, I do not know Julian Assange and have never been in communication with him or anyone at WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly through an intermediary. According to a Reuters report published on Jan. 9, 2019, a WikiLeaks confidential memo confirmed that it was “false and defamatory to suggest Julian Assange or WikiLeaks privately provided information about its pending 2016 U.S. election-related publications to any outside party, including Jerome Corsi.”
Because Mr. Mueller declined to prosecute me there are legal limits to what Attorney General Barr can allow to be shared about me from the Mueller report precisely because Mr. Mueller declined to prosecute me for any crime, including what is commonly referred to as the crime of lying to the FBI and/or lying to the Office of Special Counsel.
Although Robert Mueller presented me with a plea deal, I rejected the plea deal despite the threat by Aaron Zelinsky, one of the Mueller prosecutors most involved with my case, that by rejecting the plea deal, I would be charged with multiple criminal counts. This never happened.
Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors and the FBI had incorrectly calculated that after their 40-hour inquisition I had become so frightened and confused that I would do anything to avoid going to federal prison.
In the final analysis, now that Mr. Mueller has declined to prosecute me, it is obvious the Office of Special Counsel could not prove in court that I committed any crime whatsoever. The truth is that I tried to cooperate with Mr. Mueller and that I never lied, despite admitting to multiple memory mistakes that required me to amend my testimony multiple times regarding my 2016 phone conversations, emails and in-person interactions.
While I am not an attorney, I believe Mr. Mueller’s decision not to prosecute me severely limits what the government is legally allowed to make public regarding my voluntary interviews before three of his top prosecutors and six-to-nine FBI agents in an inner conference room with no windows or clock over a two-month period over September and October 2016, an unmarked building in which the Office of Special Counsel rented space in Southeast Washington, D.C.
Should Chairman Nadler’s demand that Attorney General Barr turn over to the House Judiciary Committee all records of the Office of Special Counsel in an unredacted form, and should any confidential material about me be released or leaked to the public, including information regarding my private emails and phone conversations, I am prepared to file a federal civil lawsuit for millions of dollars of damages in Federal District Court in Washington against the Department of Justice and Congress, naming among others Mr. Barr and Mr. Nadler.
While we have complied with Chairman Nadler’s initial request to produce documents, it now appears that the House Judiciary Committee is demanding access by subpoena to not just to Mr. Mueller’s unredacted final report but also to Mr. Mueller’s internal investigative documents, including FBI 302 field interview reports and the prosecutor’s internal memos.
If Mr. Nadler wants my complete records from 2016, he should simply get these records from Mr. Mueller because the Office of Special Counsel appears to have information from my phone calls that may well have been derived from illegal FISA electronic surveillance and/or illegal National Security Electronic surveillance that may stretch back to my first major book, “Unfit for Command,” the Swift Boat book exposing John Kerry’s record in Vietnam that I co-authored with John O’Neill in 2004.
Mr. Nadler would save himself and the nation a lot of time and expense if he merely read my latest book and understood Mr. Mueller, despite engaging in what I consider prosecutorial misconduct, failed to prove his predetermined case.
My attorney, Larry Klayman, has already filed a $350 million civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and criminal and ethics complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General, as well as the District of Columbia Bar Disciplinary Counsel.
We are prepared to file a companion lawsuit against House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler and the Attorney General if we feel we are required to do so. If House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff pursues a similar course of action, he too will be sued.
--Original article reposted from the Washington Times