Create a new version of paste:

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

Stone Cold Truth transcript excerpt, interview with Ray McGovern.

Excerpt one runs from 27:30 to 35:40. Excerpt two runs from 41:30-49:12.

File link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/an223oqv11qbhh4/0218171%20-%20Stone%20Cold%20Truth%20Feb%2018%202017%20hr1.mp3

Excerpt one:

ROGER STONE
Welcome to the Stone Cold Truth on the Genesis Communications Network, you're in the Stone Zone with Roger Stone and Travis Irvine. And now, I'm very pleased to have veteran CIA officer Ray McGovern...I heard Mr. McGovern on a terrific interview on WBAI with Randy Credico [February 7, 2017 broadcast of "Live on the Fly", file link: http://nuarchive.wbai.org/mp3/wbai_170207_170002randyCrelof.mp3]. I was very very impressed, that's why I wanted him on the Stone Cold Truth today. Mr. McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990. In the 1980s, he chaired the National Intelligence Estimates, and prepared the President's Daily Intelligence Briefing. He was award the highest medal, the Intelligence Commendation Medal, when he retired from the Agency, and he returned it in 2006, to protest the CIA's involvement with torture. Ray McGovern, welcome to the Stone Cold Truth.

RAY MCGOVERN
Thank you, Roger.

STONE
Well, it seems to me the actions of our intelligence services are front and center. Why don't we start with your assessment - they love that word "assessment" - it means "guess", [MCGOVERN laughs] by the way. Their assessment, of whether the Russians did, in fact, hack our electoral system, and whether the CIA or any intelligence agency has yet to produce any proof of same.

MCGOVERN
Well, let me start with the latter. The answer is no. They haven't produced any proof of same. We have a white movement peopled by many, many retirees from the intelligence community, including the technical director of the National Security Agency, the NSA, his name is Bill Binney, we don't hide behind anonymity. Bill constructed many of the programs the NSA is still using. Now, when this hit the fan, so to speak, we asked Bill, "Bill, do you know about this collection capability on emails? Can you give us a memo?" He did, and he put it out on the twelfth of December. Now, what it said is this: we know, partly because Bill constructed these things, that the NSA really does have the capability of tracking each and every email on the network. Now, that boggles the mind, I know, but now I said, "Bill, is that so?" He said, "You don't have to take my word for it," he said, Ed Snowden brought out slides, powerpoint diagrams, not only about this reality, but about precisely how it works. Where the trace mechanisms are. How they scoop it up, how, when an email goes abroad, it can be picked up by at least two or three of our twelve people who co-operate with us, countries that are our allies. So, nothing escapes NSA's attention.

So, why do I mention all this? I mention all this, because if this were true, namely: not if Russia hacked, everybody hacks. Namely, if it were true, that Russia gave this information to Julian Assange for Wikileaks...NSA has the goods on what happened. Now: NSA in this last embarrassment, in this last memo, that I would never want to be associated with, as an analyst with the intelligence community, it says that the CIA and the FBI have good confidence, very good confidence, when we assessed this, we are assessing it correctly. Assessment, as you pointed out, Roger, just means they don't have any evidence, they're just making what we in the army used to call a scientific wild...well, I got bleeped the last time, a scientific wild [ass] guess. K, a SWAG? A S.W.A.G. So, what I'm saying here is this: that the NSA didn't say, they had very good confidence, they said that had moderate [STONE laughs] moderate confidence. NSA is the one that would have the goods on all this. And if they say "moderate confidence", and they can't go with the big boys saying "supreme confidence", that just means they have enough honest analysts at the NSA who say "Look, [if] you say we have supreme confidence, [then] we quit, we'll go to the press, and tell them-" what we in the Bronx, where I grew up, we call a crock. You know?

STONE
Yes.

MCGOVERN
That's the technical end of things. Now the other thing is this: that there is a former British ambassador that says that he knows who the source was, and who has met with the source in Washington on a given day, namely September 25, of this past year. Now I know he was there, because he and I emceed an event, at American University, and I know he was going out to dinner with us, but he didn't. I said "Craig-" His name is Craig Murray, I said "Craig - aren't you coming?" He said, "Uh- You know-" He disappeared into a wooded area, behind American University, where later he told the world, that he had met with someone connected to the source, of those emails that Wikileaks put out. And my question to The New York Times and Washington Post was: you knew, right off the bat, an ambassador, from Great Britain, who claimed to know who the source was, claimed to have met with him, said that there is a thumb drive, or that it was leaked, not hacked, that's why the NSA has no information, it wasn't put on the network, and did you think to check with ambassador Murray? And the answer was, "N-N-No, we didn't." So, this is, as I say, a last ditch effort, for people that are shell shocked, that Hillary lost, and they're trying to take it out on the incumbent, not the incumbent, but the president to be, and they try to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach out to the Russian leaders, you know the worst thing that could happen to the establishment, is that, were peace to break out. I mean, this is very bad for business.

STONE
Yup.

MCGOVERN
What Eisenhower called the military industrial, now we say congressional media and deep state complex...it's gotten much worse since the days of Eistenhower. That's why it's so difficult to even suggest that we even want to talk to the Russians. Last thing I'll say is: that this reminiscent of eight years ago. Obama said, yeah, I think we ought to talk to Iran. They were all "NO!NO!NO! DON'T TALK TO THEM!" Well, he prevailed. Over Hillary, and over McCain, and they did talk to Iran. What happened? We got a deal. So we could do the same thing with the Russians. But the people who make the arms, the people who, well...Pope Francis speaking before Congress, September two years ago, said: the main problem was, the blood soaked arms traders.  He got that right. He got stormy applause, and then all those congresspeople looked into their jacket pockets to make sure the latest envelope from Lockheed and Rayethon was still there. It was the height of hypocrisy, and that's what's driving a lot of this. And that's why there's a silver lining, to Trump's coming on as president. Because if he's willing to talk to the Russians, I can say as someone who's watched Russia for over fifty years, in my view the Russians are quite willing to talk to a sensible person, who isn't interested first and foremost in creating tension and building up more troops on the border with Russia.

Excerpt two:

STONE
Welcome back to The Stone Cold Truth. We're in the Stone Zone with veteran CIA officer Ray McGovern, talking about the current squabble between the intelligence agencies - all, of course, headed by political appointees - and president elect Donald Trump. One thing I'm curious about, Mr. McGovern, was why Ray Clapper, who theoretically is co-ordinating all this intelligence, early on, he said not all of the agencies concurred with the CIA's assessment, but later he seemed to fall into line, with this, the-russians-hacked-the-election canard, which they now have kindof jointly embraced. Yet again, without truth. What was going on there?

MCGOVERN
Well, James Clapper has a record. He was one of the a-, the architects, of the, well, most people say, the mistaken intelligence before Iraq...it was not mistaken. It was out-and-out fraud. It was concocted, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report said the intelligence was made up, "it was even non-existent". So, we're talking about a fellow who participated in that fraud, and, of course, he lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee, four years ago, March of 2013, when he was asked, that the NSA did any of these things...that is, monitor conversations or emails of millions of Americans. And he said, "No, sir." And then Ed Snowden came out, right? And Ed Snowden indicated that what in fact we were doing...so that was March, when Clapper said that, Snowden's out in June...it took Clapper until July to say I'm sorry. He wrote a letter to the Senate Committee, "I'm sorry, what I saw was 'Clearly erroneous.'" And the Senate Oversigh Committee said "Oh, okay, you can stay on for three and a half more years." So, that's the guy we're dealing with here. When people say, "Assange is untrustworthy," well, I'd like people to show where Assange has lied. Now, I can say, the record of Clapper is untrustworthy, and why do these congressmen applaud him and are so, so eager to believe what he says? What's afoot here is a deliberate effort to blacken Mr. Putin, and to explain away what happened with this tremenous defeat of the establishment and Hillary Clinton.

The important thing to remember is that when Wikileaks, not the Russians, Wikileaks, got this leak, not a hack, but a leak, right before the Democratic National Convention, three days before Julian Assange and others had massaged it into searchable form, and released it. And what did the contents say? The contents said that Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, pure and simple. Now. So, big problem. What was Hillary supposed to do? I got an idea! Yeah, this'll work! We'll bring on Russians! But everyone'll say it was Wikileaks, not Russians. That's okay, that's alright, we'll say Julian Assange has worked for the Russians!

STONE
Yeah, that's absolutely right. This whole thing was an effort to distract from the content of the disclosures.

MCGOVERN
Exactly.

STONE
She was busted. She had to cheat to beat an eighty seven year old socialist who wasn't even a registered Democrat a year before the nomination process...we don't want to talk about that, so let's blame the Russians. Look-

MCGOVERN
Yeah, it was a magnificent diversion, you know...the New York Times, Washington [Post], everyone fell into place, the TV channels, all of a sudden, it didn't matter that she cheated Bernie out of the nomination. What mattered was - who did it, who did it.

STONE
Who leaked that? Yeah. And of course, it's interesting to me, that when Assange offers a ten thousand dollar reward for information regarding the murder of the DNC employee Seth Rich...I think he's telling the world who his source is. Who handed over the documents.

MCGOVERN
That was the most unusual thing about this. For your audience, that might not know, Seth Rich was a twenty seven year old, worked at the Democratic National Committee, I think he probably...he probably wanted Bernie not to be cheated out of the nomination. In any case, all we know about it, for sure, is that he was murdered on the streets of Washington, about four o'clock in the morning on the 10th of July. Now, what's interesting is...the next week, Julian Assange is being interviewed by a Dutch TV station, and what he says, and I quote, is: um, "this shows the immense risk that is undergone by whistleblowers. We offer, we, Wikileaks, offer a reward of twenty thousand dollars for information leading to the killer of Seth Rich." I said, "Wow!" Now, Julian has never, ever come that close to even suggesting who might be his source...he did, that time, I don't know if he regrets it or not, but that's on the record...so, it may have been, in my view, not only Seth, but other young people, who really were appalled when they saw the content of these emails, showing what they did about the corruption at the Democratic National Committee, and Podesta's emails, and also in Hillary's own, and decided, you know, Americans really need to know this, and they leaked it. That is, they put a little thumb drive into their computer, and somehow got it to Julian Assange, without having to put it on the networks, that's the way he [Assange] got it. And who did ambassador Craig Murray meet with? On the 25th of September at American University? Well, I don't know. But I know he was there. He was there at a joint ceremony that he and I were running.  I was surprised to hear him say that he met someone like this, but there's another part to this story...and the inexcusable thing here is, [MCGOVERN, laughing while he says this] The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, any really serious investigating of how this material got out, to Wikileaks, they would at least - I would give them the money to make the trans-atlantic call to talk to ambassador Murray. He's a friend of mine. I asked him, twice, two days apart when this thing started. Has anyone contacted you from the American press? The New York Times, Washington Post. He said, "No, Ray, they haven't." And I said, "Don't you find that unusual?" He laughed and he said, "Not given the state of your press." [Murray would end up giving his story to The Daily Mail, considered by almost everyone on both sides of the Atlantic one of the most slipshod, error prone, and factually inaccurate English language papers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html ] So, there you have it.

STONE
Yeah, I think that's exactly right. The Washington Post continues to insist that Seth Rich was murdered in a robbery gone bad, yet his father has said on the record in numerous places, that his wallet, his jewelery, his money were entirely intact.

MCGOVERN
Yeah, it was a strange robbery indeed.