CNN's Jake Tapper grills Jerome Corsi about the confusing web of testimony he will supply against Roger Stone:
JEROME CORSI, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I am not very good at telling someone else's motivation, so I can't really answer what Roger's motivation is.
I know my motivation is to tell the truth. And I will affirm that what is in the indictment about me is accurate. And I will affirm that if asked to in court.
TAPPER: One of the -- so, that means that you're willing to testify against Roger Stone, theoretically, if need be. You will affirm that the -- what's in the indictment is correct.
CORSI: I will be happy to testify, if -- I would suspect to be subpoenaed. And I will let the testimony fall wherever it falls.
I'm going to tell the truth, to the best of my ability. Even that's hard, given the amount of information and the fact that I have said from the beginning I'm not a human tape recorder. You can't push a button, and I can't recall precisely, in detail, granularly, conversations, e-mails, events from 2016.
But I'm going to do my best to tell the truth, without calculation of whom it benefits or whom it detracts.
TAPPER: All right, I want to get to your memory in a second.
But, first, one of the biggest outstanding questions from this indictment comes from a line that says -- quote -- "A senior Trump campaign official was" -- quote -- "directed" to contact Stone to find out about any additional WikiLeaks releases.
Do you know who directed that senior campaign official to talk with Roger Stone? Do you know who either of these individuals are?
CORSI: I really don't.
I mean, I -- I know what Roger told me, but I don't recall that Roger ever said that he was under instructions from anyone in the campaign to find out about what WikiLeaks had after July 22, 2016.
I do agree that Roger wanted me to find out from WikiLeaks. I never had any contact with Julian Assange directly or indirectly. So, my communications with Roger in July and August 2016 about what I thought Assange had were really speculation on my part, connecting the dots.
TAPPER: All right, let's dive into that.
According to the indictments, Stone e-mailed you asking you to -- quote -- "get" the pending WikiLeaks e-mails that could have damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
You replied to Roger Stone a week later, saying -- quote -- "Word is friend in embassy" -- that's Assange -- "plans two more dumps. Impact planned to be very damaging. Would not hurt to start suggesting Hillary Clinton old, memory bad, has stroke. Neither he nor she well" -- referring to Bill and Hillary Clinton. "I expect that much of next dump focus setting stage for foundation debacle" -- unquote.
Now, sure enough, WikiLeaks later released e-mails about Hillary Clinton's health and the Clinton Foundation.
Now, I don't need to tell you, prosecutors do not believe that you conjured this information. Why don't you be honest with the American people right now about where it came from?
CORSI: This was really the subject of the last 20 hours of my 40-hour voluntary interviews with the special counselor.
And we went through -- I made an honest effort to go through everybody I was in communication with in 2016 to see if there was anybody directly or indirectly that was providing me information from WikiLeaks. And I can't find anyone, and the special counselor couldn't suggest anyone.
So I'm concluding that my recollection is correct, namely, that I did just connect the dots and figure it out on my own. And I admit, that's hard to accept. People are going to have a hard time understanding that.
But, throughout my life, I have been having this ability, deductively or inductively, to really understand situations. And, remarkably, often, I'm correct.
TAPPER: Well, according to the indictment, you did forward Stone's e-mail asking for the WikiLeaks information to an associate in the United Kingdom, who you have identified publicly and in your book also as professor Ted Malloch. I think I'm pronouncing that correctly.
Could Malloch have been your source for the information on WikiLeaks?
CORSI: Well, we examined that very carefully.
And as I point out again in "Silent No More," in the book, I don't believe that Malloch ever contacted Julian Assange. And I certainly don't recall any conversations from Malloch in which he told me about Assange.
So, while I did forward e-mails to Malloch from Roger Stone, saying, go see Assange, essentially, I never really expected that Malloch would do it, and I have no reason to believe that he did do it. So that did not influence my conclusions in July and August that, essentially, Assange had Podesta's e-mails.
TAPPER: So, you write in your book that the Mueller team was very frustrated with you and your interviews.
In reading your book, I can understand why, and talking to you right now, because you leave wiggle room here that maybe -- maybe you were talking to somebody, you just don't remember it.
You write in the book -- quote -- "Although I may have had a source to Assange, I could not remember a source" -- unquote.
That's very frustrating, because I think most people would remember if they had a source to Assange.
CORSI: Well, that's what's been frustrating for me, too.
That's why I made such an incredible effort to look through every one who showed up in my 2016 e-mails or the phone conversations I had. Verizon would not give me all my own records, although I assigned them over to the special counselor. They would have them.
We -- in fact, the FBI went and interviewed, I found out later, almost everyone who showed up in my 2016 conversations, e-mails, phone calls, et cetera. And I can't find anyone who provided me direct or indirect information from Assange.
And Assange himself has recently affirmed that, by name, Jerome Corsi had no contact with him or with WikiLeaks about the 2016 election or on the Podesta e-mails.
TAPPER: So, I -- there is just one other thing.
In your book, you say Roger Stone contacted you before the release of that "Access Hollywood" tape, the one with Billy Bush, and asked you to try to get word to Assange, release John Podesta's e-mails, so -- to change the news cycle.
Now, you write in your book; "I believe I told the daily World Net Daily news team conference call that the Billy Bush tape was coming. I'm sure I asked that if anybody had a way to reach Assange, we should pass the alert to Assange, so he could begin dropping the Podesta file right away."
As we know, on October 7, WikiLeaks did release those e-mails just half-an-hour after "The Washington Post" published the "Access Hollywood" story.
Do you take credit for that? Do you think what you said on that conference call got word to Assange?
CORSI: I doubt it very seriously.
I mean, my recollection and the records show I had three conversations with Roger Stone that day. I believe it was October, what, 7 or 8, at any rate, the day WikiLeaks released the first of the Podesta e-mails.
And it's my recollection that Roger mentioned that this Billy Bush was coming, and he wanted to know if Assange could begin dropping e-mails. Now, Roger may have a different recollection of that. I'm not disputing what Roger's recollection is.
I can only tell you what my recollection is. And I doubt that anything was able to be communicated by the World Net Daily staff.
CORSI: In fact, as we looked through that day, it was a very, very busy day for me in New York City. I was working with a lot of conference calls and a lot of different meetings.
CORSI: But I can't find anyone that I was communicated with who had any direct contact with Assange, as I didn't have direct contact.
TAPPER: Jerome, let me just...
TAPPER: Let me just ask you, because we're running out of time, last question.
You e-mailed Roger Stone to say you -- quote -- "should be given credit," according to an e-mail the prosecutors have.
Why would you say that if you don't think you deserved credit for the timing of the WikiLeaks dump right after the "Access Hollywood" tape?
CORSI: Well, I don't think it was specifically that, that I was referring to.
I was referring to, I had, I believe, figured out that Assange had Podesta's e-mails. And I did tell this, not only to Roger, but to others. And it turned out that I was right.
Now, that was deduction on my part, as best I can remember. It was putting together the dots. But I felt like that should have been valuable information, just that I figured it out, not that I had communications with WikiLeaks.
And I believe Roger worked with Roger Credico and -- or with Randy Credico, rather...
CORSI: ... because Roger, I don't think, ever really believed -- I certainly don't recall Roger thinking -- if I had a contact with WikiLeaks, I think Roger would have leapfrogged me immediately and gone -- taken the contact himself.