Jerome Corsi on Stone Cold Truth (05/27/2017)

Supplemental document for: "Theory that Roger Stone's back channel to Wikileaks was Randy Credico", link: https://wakelet.com/wake/2d352ae9-febe-44a1-a7bb-51674a2e4bf5

Jerome Corsi on "Stone Cold Truth", co-hosted by Tyler Nixon and Roger Stone. Broadcast date: May 27, 2017.

File link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/80g14inc8c4q78d/0527171%20-%20Hour%201%20-%20Jerome%20Corsi%20Nick%20Gillespie.mp3

Transcript runs from 27:30 to 36:56.

ROGER STONE
Welcome back to "The Stone Cold Truth". I'm your host, Roger Stone. Joining me is my co-pilot, Tyler Nixon. And on the line we have the Washington bureau chief for InfoWars dot com, Dr. Jerry Corsi joins us now. Welcome to "The Stone Cold Truth", Dr. Corsi.

JEROME CORSI
I'm very pleased to be back, thank you.

STONE
So, uh, we were talking about the Seth Rich matter, I know that you are on top of this, and have been reporting it, and will be reporting it for InfoWars. And it seems like there is a massive international news blockout, we're told we can't even discuss this. That the official house organ of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Washington Post, ran an op-ed late last week, in which the family appeals for privacy. Now, I respect their right to privacy. But in my opinion, the American people's right to truth trumps their right to privacy. Why don't you give us the latest on the probe into Seth Rich's murder?

CORSI
Well, Roger, I'm gonna have a [inaudible] series of articles, three article series in InfoWars next week, starting on Tuesday. I'm doing a very systematic effort...[inaudible] a few people inside the Democratic National Committee, and related Democratic organizations to talk on a confidential basis. And I think I've really figured it out. I'm doing kindof the full treatment, I mean, when you sort things out, and don't let the confusion of the mainstream media try to make it muddy, it's very clear. For instance, I'm just going to start with one piece people rarely distinguish. The first Guccifer, who did a hack, did the hack, was really hacking [Sidney] Blumenthal, and then found Hillary's emails, between Hillary and Blumenthal, he realized Hillary had a private email address. At this Clinton email dot com. And so, he hacked into Hillary's email...now, that's very different from somebody hacks this thing, the Russians hacked it, Guccifer II was not hacking into email. And people rarely look at...well, what was he hacking into, what did he release, where did he get that from? And when we sort all this pretty well through, it's pretty clear that Seth Rich was not a hacker, he was a leaker. He got Podesta's emails, no one else had Podesta's emails. It was really this trove of emails that Seth Rich came up with, and he released them to Wikileaks, that's the only place this trove appeared. I'm quite convinced, and I think I can prove it through some of the Wikileaks documents that've been released, that it was the CIA that did the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's computers. And into their data file. This was originally a CIA operation. And I think it's pretty clear from what Wikileaks has released and what the CIA has released, that we can prove that.

STONE
Uh, would that explain why the folks at the Democratic National Committee would never let the FBI examine the servers?

CORSI
That's right. Because [inaudible] examine the servers, I think you could prove it. This was an FBI- I'm sorry, this was a CIA hit on the Democratic Party. And they decided they'd blame it on Russia, they made it look like Russia, you could trace back all the IP addresses and go through the methodology of it, I think it's very clear that this was one of the CIA attacks designed to blame it on the Russians, and make it look like the Russians. And there's no evidence of Russia. I think Russia's entry into this, was to basically try to, um, save people like Seth Rich, when they knew what was going on, Russia tried to blow the whistle on the- CIA had been doing the hacking, and Obama threw them all out of the country. [laughs] I think that's why he threw them out of the country. They wanted to tell the truth about who was doing the hacking.

STONE
Yeah, you can already see the narrative coming. When the evidence becomes overwhelming that...Seth Rich was murdered for political reasons and not as part of a robbery, mark my words, suddenly the mainstream media will switch to "Well, he was murdered by the Russians." That's where this is going next. Because it fits their convenient and completely _bogus_ narrative, that the Russians were helping take Hillary down, and that the Russians were helping Donald Trump. Neither which has been proved, _anywhere_. Certainly there's no evidence that would stand up in a U.S. court of law. But you can already see this happening, in fact, let me give you the precursor to this, Jerry, you'll appreciate this. For years they told us Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and he acted alone. When the evidence began to show a conspiracy, and the question was doubted, the establishment suddenly now says, "Alright, well, you're right, it was a conspiracy, the Russians did it. He was working for the Russians." That is, of course, as we now know, false. You're going to have the same argument here. Suddenly, Seth Rich is going to have been murdered by the Russians, which is, I think, is bogus as the rest of this.

CORSI
And I think you're going to find out there was, in both instances, the Russians that were trying to warn us that Kennedy was going to be assassinated, and that, they were also trying to warn us that our CIA had gone rogue. And was actually, probably, wiretapping, I don't think they could get into the Republicans. Because...one of the other keys to understanding, unraveling this, as I'm going to explain, is that the Democrats, the progressives, were so lax about internet security, or cybersecurity, that they could have been hacked by, you know, a fifteen year old kid, with, you know, a computer and some knowledge of what hacking is all about. Anybody could have hacked these people. I mean, the Democrats were like wide open. They were leaving themselves vulnerable. They were responding to phishing attacks. They were, uh, their systems were so crudely protected, that it would take very little of an expert hacker to gain access.

STONE
And then we have the case of Craig Murray, who is a respected and entirely credible British diplomat, claiming that he was in touch with Rich, and that Rich passed on documents to him that he passed on to Assange. That has never appeared in the New York Times. Never. It has been widely covered in the European press...and I did some research on Murray, he is entirely credible.

CORSI
Well, see, one of the keys to understanding this, is that there wasn't one hack. There were multiple hacks going on. And the things that Guccifer got, was voting data. He was hacking into the voting data computer systems, which was totally different from the email system. And, you know, there's no indication at all that Guccifer ever got into the email system. This is Guccifer II that I'm talking about. And Guccifer I only hacked into Hillary's private email server. He never hacked into anything at the Democratic National Committee. And you can [inaudible] the content of what they released, who is doing the hacking and why.

TYLER NIXON
Well Jerry, we've got Nick Gillespie coming up in the next segment, and we're going to be having Luke Rosiak from the Daily Caller on later in the show. He's going to be discussing the hack, not hack I should say, but the IT scandal that's brewing over the House of Representatives, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So, I wanna thank you very much for coming on today and joining us. It's always a pleasure to have you with us.

CORSI
It's been my pleasure, thank you. I look forward to getting a series of articles at InfoWars dot com out on Tuesday through the coming week.

NIXON
Sounds good.

STONE
Many thanks.

CORSI
Thank you.