
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”)
showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage
candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, former Campaign member Roger Stone forecast to
senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate
Clinton. WikiLeaks’s first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump
announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server
used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically).
Stone stayed in regular contact with the Campaign claiming to have information about future
releases by WikiLeaks, while privately asking his own associates to contact WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange and publicly boasting of his access to Assange. WikiLeaks began releasing
Podesta’s stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released
video considered damaging to candidate Trump. Section III of this Report details the Office’s
investigation into the Russian hacking operations, as well as other efforts by Trump Campaign
supporters to obtain Clinton-related emails.
RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of
contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring
or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation
established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from
information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities.
The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the
Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign
officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking
improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia
and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which
are summarized below in chronological order.
2015. Some of the earliest contacts were made in connection with a Trump Organization
real-estate project in Russia known as Trump Tower Moscow. Candidate Trump signed a Letter
of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization
executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian
government press secretary Dmitry Peskov. The Trump Organization pursued the project through
at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact
with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to
Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told
Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands
5


U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately
served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives. See Justice Manual § 9-
27.220.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office’s charging decisions,
which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged. See United States v.
Netyksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.).
(b)(5)-2
(b) (5)
(b)(6)/(b)(7)(C)-2
(b) (5), (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump
Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false-
statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. Based on evidence of his
lies to Congress and efforts to influence witnesses in the various Russia investigations, a grand
jury charged Roger Stone with making false statements, obstruction of justice, and witness
tampering. And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that
9



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
III. RUSSIAN HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATIONS
Beginning in March 2016, units of the Russian Federation’s Main Intelligence Directorate
of the General Staff (GRU) hacked the computers and email accounts of organizations, employees,
and volunteers supporting the Clinton Campaign, including the email account of campaign
chairman John Podesta. Starting in April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC). The GRU targeted hundreds of email accounts used by Clinton Campaign
employees, advisors, and volunteers. In total, the GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents
from the compromised email accounts and networks.109 The GRU later released stolen Clinton
Campaign and DNC documents through online personas, “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” and later
through the organization WikiLeaks. The release of the documents was designed and timed to
interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and undermine the Clinton Campaign.
The Trump Campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and, in the summer and
fall of 2016, Roger Stone tried to connect with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through
intermediaries. Stone boasted to senior Campaign officials about his access to Assange. After
Stone’s prediction of WikiLeaks’s first Clinton-related release proved true, the Trump Campaign
stayed in contact with Stone about WikiLeaks’s activities. The investigation was unable to resolve
whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks’s release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7,
2016, the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language
about women.
A. GRU Hacking Directed at the Clinton Campaign
1. GRU Units Target the Clinton Campaign
Two military units of the GRU carried out the computer intrusions into the Clinton
Campaign, DNC, and DCCC: Military Units 26165 and 74455.110 Military Unit 26165 is a GRU
cyber unit dedicated to targeting military, political, governmental, and non-governmental
organizations outside of Russia, including in the United States.111 The unit was sub-divided into
departments with different specialties. One department, for example, developed specialized
malicious software (“malware”), while another department conducted large-scale spearphishing (b)(7)(E)-2
campaigns.112 (b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
a bitcoin mining operation to
109 As discussed in Section V below, our Office charged 12 GRU officers for crimes arising from
the hacking of these computers, principally with conspiring to commit computer intrusions, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§1030 and 371. See Volume I, Section V.B, infra; Indictment, United States v. Netyksho, No.
1:18-cr-215 (D.D.C. July 13, 2018), Doc. 1 (“Netyksho Indictment”).
110 Netyksho Indictment ¶ 1.
111 Separate from this Office’s indictment of GRU officers, in October 2018 a grand jury sitting in
the Western District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment charging certain members of Unit 26165 with
hacking the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and other international sport
associations. United States v. Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, No. 18-263 (W.D. Pa.).
112 A spearphishing email is designed to appear as though it originates from a trusted source, and
solicits information to enable the sender to gain access to an account or network, or causes the recipient to
36



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
The GRU was also in contact through the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Roger Stone, a former
Trump Campaign member whose interest in material stolen from the Clinton Campaign is further
discussed in Volume I, Section III.D.1, infra. After the GRU had published stolen DNC
documents through Guccifer 2.0, Stone told members of the Campaign that he was in contact with
Guccifer 2.0.154 In early August 2016, Stone publicly protested Twitter’s suspension of the
Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account. After it was reinstated, GRU officers posing as Guccifer 2.0 wrote
to Stone via private message, “thank u for writing back . . . do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the
docs i posted?” On August 17, 2016, the GRU added, “please tell me if i can help u anyhow . . .
it would be a great pleasure to me.” On September 9, 2016, the GRU—again posing as
Guccifer 2.0—referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked Stone, “what do u
think of the info on the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” Stone
responded, “pretty standard.”155
The investigation did not identify evidence of other
communications between Stone and Guccifer 2.0.
3. Use of WikiLeaks
In order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the GRU units
transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign to WikiLeaks. GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to
communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels,
including possibly through WikiLeaks’s private communication system.
a. WikiLeaks’s Expressed Opposition Toward the Clinton Campaign
WikiLeaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, privately expressed opposition to
candidate Clinton well before the first release of stolen documents. In November 2015, Assange
wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better
for GOP to win . . . Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst
qualities. . . .
With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities.,
dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. . . . She’s a bright, well connected, sadisitic sociopath.”156
In March 2016, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of approximately 30,000 Clinton
emails that had been obtained through FOIA litigation.157 While designing the archive, one
WikiLeaks member explained the reason for building the archive to another associate:
154 Gates 4/10/18 302, at 3.
155 8/15/16 – 9/9/16 Twitter DMs, @Guccifer_2 & @RogerJStoneJr.
156 11/19/15 Twitter Group Chat, Group ID 594242937858486276, @WikiLeaks et al. Assange
also wrote that, “GOP will generate a lot oposition [sic], including through dumb moves. Hillary will do
the same thing, but co-opt the liberal opposition and the GOP opposition. Hence hillary has greater freedom
to start wars than the GOP and has the will to do so.” Id.
157 WikiLeaks, “Hillary Clinton Email Archive,” available at https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/.
44






U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
(b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
(b)(7)(E)-2
Similar (b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E) for vulnerabilities continued through the election.
Unit 74455 also sent spearphishing emails to public officials involved in election
administration and personnel at companies involved in voting technology. In August 2016, GRU (b)(7)(E)-2
(b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
officers targeted employees of
a voting technology company that developed software
used by numerous U.S. counties to manage voter rolls, and installed malware on the company
network. Similarly, in November 2016, the GRU sent spearphishing emails to over 120 email
accounts used by Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election.191
The spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software
(commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.192
The FBI was separately responsible for this investigation. We understand the FBI believes that this
operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county
government. The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not
undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.
D. Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials
The Trump Campaign showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials
throughout the summer and fall of 2016. Trump associate Roger Stone made several attempts to
contact WikiLeaks founder Assange, boasted of his access to Assange, and was in regular contact
with Campaign officials about the releases that Assange made and was believed to be planning.
(b) (5)
(b)(5)-2
1. Role of Roger Stone
a. Background
Roger Stone has known President Trump for many years and was an advisor to the Trump
Campaign from close to its inception until approximately August 2015. After leaving the
Campaign in August 2015, Stone continued to promote the Campaign and maintained regular
contact with Trump Campaign members, including candidate Trump and, when they joined the
Campaign, with campaign officials Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, and Rick Gates. According to
multiple witnesses involved with the Campaign, beginning in June 2016 and continuing through
October 2016, Stone spoke about WikiLeaks with senior Campaign officials, including candidate
Trump.
191 Netyksho Indictment ¶ 76; (b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E), (b) (3)(b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
(b)(7)(E)-2
192 (b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(E), (b) (3)
51





U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
b. Contacts with the Campaign about WikiLeaks
Stone has publicly denied having any direct contact with Assange and claimed not to have
had any discussions with an intermediary connected to Assange until July or August 2016.193
Other members and associates of the Trump Campaign, however, told the Office that Stone
claimed to the Campaign as early as June 2016—before any announcement by Assange or
WikiLeaks—that he had learned that WikiLeaks would release documents damaging to the Clinton
Campaign. On June 12, 2016, Assange claimed in a televised interview to “have emails relating
to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,”194 but provided no additional context.
In debriefings with the Office, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates said that,
before Assange’s June 12 announcement, Gates and Stone had a phone conversation in which
Stone said something “big” was coming and had to do with a leak of information.195 Stone also
said to Gates that he thought Assange had Clinton emails. Gates asked Stone when the information
was going to be released. Stone said the release would happen very soon. According to Gates,
between June 12, 2016 and July 22, 2016, Stone repeated that information was coming. Manafort
and Gates both called to ask Stone when the release would happen, and Gates recalled candidate
Trump being generally frustrated that the Clinton emails had not been found.196
Paul Manafort, who would later become campaign chairman, provided similar information
about the timing of Stone’s statements about WikiLeaks.197 According to Manafort, sometime in
June 2016, Stone told Manafort that he was dealing with someone who was in contact with
WikiLeaks and believed that there would be an imminent release of emails by WikiLeaks.198
193 Executive Session, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives,
116th Cong. 39-40 (Sept. 26, 2017) (Statement of Roger J. Stone, Jr.).
194 See Mahita Gajanan, Julian Assange Timed DNC Email Release for Democratic Convention,
Time (July 27, 2016) (quoting the June 12, 2016 television interview).
195 In February 2018, Gates pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a superseding criminal
information charging him with conspiring to defraud and commit multiple offenses (i.e., tax fraud, failure
to report foreign bank accounts, and acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal) against the
United States, as well as making false statements to our Office. Superseding Criminal Information, United
States v. Richard W. Gates III, 1:17-cr-201 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2018), Doc. 195 (“Gates Superseding Criminal
Information”); Plea Agreement, United States v. Richard W. Gates III, 1:17-cr-201 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2018),
Doc. 205 (“Gates Plea Agreement”). Gates has provided information and in-court testimony that the Office
has deemed to be reliable.
196 Gates 10/25/18 302, at 1-2.
197 As explained further in Volume I, Section IV.A.8, infra, Manafort entered into a plea agreement
with our Office. We determined that he breached the agreement by being untruthful in proffer sessions and
before the grand jury. We have generally recounted his version of events in this report only when his
statements are sufficiently corroborated to be trustworthy; to identify issues on which Manafort’s untruthful
responses may themselves be of evidentiary value; or to provide Manafort’s explanations for certain events,
even when we were unable to determine whether that explanation was credible. His account appears here
principally because it aligns with those of other witnesses.
198 (b) (3)
(b)(3)-1
52






U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Michael Cohen, former executive vice president of the Trump Organization and special
counsel to Donald J. Trump,199 told the Office that he recalled an incident in which he was in
candidate Trump’s office in Trump Tower when Stone called. Cohen believed the call occurred
before July 22, 2016, when WikiLeaks released its first tranche of Russian-stolen DNC emails.200
Stone was patched through to the office and placed on speakerphone. Stone then told the candidate
that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would
release information. According to Cohen, Stone claimed that he did not know what the content of
the materials was and that Trump responded, “oh good, alright” but did not display any further
reaction.201 Cohen further told the Office that, after WikiLeaks’s subsequent release of stolen
DNC emails in July 2016, candidate Trump said to Cohen something to the effect of, “I guess
Roger was right.”202
After WikiLeaks’s July 22, 2016 release of documents, Stone participated in a conference
call with Manafort and Gates. According to Gates, Manafort expressed excitement about the
release and congratulated Stone.203 Manafort, for his part, told the Office that, shortly after
WikiLeaks’s July 22 release, Manafort also spoke with candidate Trump and mentioned that Stone
had predicted the release and claimed to have access to WikiLeaks. Candidate Trump responded
that Manafort should stay in touch with Stone.204 Manafort relayed the message to Stone, likely
on July 25, 2016.205 Manafort also told Stone that he wanted to be kept apprised of any
199 In November 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a single-count
information charging him with making false statements to Congress, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) &
(c). He had previously pleaded guilty to several other criminal charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in the Southern District of New York, after a referral from this Office. In the months leading up to
his false-statements guilty plea, Cohen met with our Office on multiple occasions for interviews and
provided information that the Office has generally assessed to be reliable and that is included in this report.
200 Cohen 8/7/18 302, at 8-9.
201 Cohen described the content of the call in an initial interview with our Office and its timing in
a later interview. With respect to timing, Cohen stated that he believed the call would have been in July
2016, based on his own travel schedule and other factors. Cohen 8/7/18 302, at 8. Cohen believes that
WikiLeaks had not released any campaign-related documents at the time, and that Stone’s telephone call
was prior to the release of stolen DNC documents on July 22, 2016. In February 2019 congressional
testimony, Cohen stated he believed the conversation in question occurred on “either the 18th or 19th and
I would guess that it would be on the 19th” of July. See Testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Committee on
Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Cong. 5 (Feb. 27, 2019).
202 Cohen 9/18/18 302, at 10. During his February 2019 congressional testimony, Cohen stated:
Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr.
Assange told Mr. Stone that within a couple of days there would be a massive dump of emails that
would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect, wouldn’t
that be great.
See Testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
116th Cong. 5 (Feb. 27, 2019).
203 Gates 10/25/18 302 (serial 241), at 4.
204 (b) (3)
(b)(3)-1
205 (b) (3)
53





U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
developments with WikiLeaks and separately told Gates to keep in touch with Stone about future
WikiLeaks releases.206
According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a
press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of
Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.207 Gates also stated that Stone called candidate Trump multiple
times during the campaign.208 Gates recalled one lengthy telephone conversation between Stone
and candidate Trump that took place while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport.
Although Gates could not hear what Stone was saying on the telephone, shortly after the call
candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.209
Stone also had conversations about WikiLeaks with Steve Bannon, both before and after
Bannon took over as the chairman of the Trump Campaign. Bannon recalled that, before joining
the Campaign on August 13, 2016, Stone told him that he had a connection to Assange. Stone
implied that he had inside information about WikiLeaks. After Bannon took over as campaign
chairman, Stone repeated to Bannon that he had a relationship with Assange and said that
WikiLeaks was going to dump additional materials that would be bad for the Clinton Campaign.210
c. Roger Stone’s Known Efforts to Communicate with WikiLeaks
Three days after WikiLeaks released stolen DNC documents on July 22, 2016, Stone sent
an email to his associate Jerome Corsi directing him to “[g]et to Assange [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy
in London and get the pending [WikiLeaks] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”211
Corsi is an author who holds a doctorate in political science.212 In 2016, Corsi also worked for the
media outlet WorldNetDaily (WND). Corsi first met Stone in early 2016 and began having
recorded conversations with Stone that Corsi intended to use as content for WND. According to
Corsi, by March 2016, Corsi stopped making recordings with Stone and began to be more of a
self-described “operative” for Stone, seeking to assist the Trump Campaign in a personal
capacity.213
206
(b)(3)-1
(b) (3)
207 Gates 4/10/18 302, at 3; Gates 4/11/18 302, at 1-2 (SM-2180998); Gates 10/25/18 302, at 2.
208 Gates 10/25/18 302 (serial 241), at 4.
209 Gates 10/25/18 302 (serial 241), at 4.
210 Bannon 10/26/18 302, at 1-2.
211 7/25/16 Email, Stone to Corsi.
212 Corsi first rose to public prominence in August 2004 when he published his book Unfit for
Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. In the 2008 election cycle, Corsi gained
prominence for being a leading proponent of the allegation that Barack Obama was not born in the United
States. Corsi told the Office that Donald Trump expressed interest in his writings, and that he spoke with
Trump on the phone on at least six occasions. Corsi 9/6/18 302, at 3.
(b)(3)-1
213 Corsi 10/31/18 302, at 2; (b) (3)
Corsi was first
interviewed on September 6, 2018 at the Special Counsel’s offices in Washington, D.C. He was
accompanied by counsel throughout the interview. Corsi was subsequently interviewed on September 17,
2018; September 21, 2018; October 31, 2018; November 1, 2018; and November 2, 2018. Counsel was
54






U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
After receiving Stone’s July 25, 2016 email, Corsi forwarded the email to another
associate, Theodore Malloch, who lived in London at the time.214 Corsi told the Office during
interviews that he “must have” previously discussed Assange with Malloch.215 Corsi also told the
Office that he introduced Malloch and Stone earlier in 2016, when Malloch wanted to become
involved in the Campaign.216 On July 31, 2016, Stone sent another email to Corsi, this one stating
that Malloch “should see Assange.”217
(b) (3)
(b)(3)-1
According to Malloch, Corsi asked him to put Corsi in touch with Assange, whom Corsi
wished to interview. Malloch recalled that Corsi also suggested that individuals in the “orbit” of
U.K. politician Nigel Farage might be able to contact Assange and asked if Malloch knew them.
Malloch told Corsi that he would think about the request but made no actual attempt to connect
Corsi with Assange.218
On August 2, 2016, Corsi sent Stone an email reading, in part, “Word is friend in embassy
plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very
damaging.” Corsi added, “Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w[ith] enemy if
they are not ready to drop HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]. That appears to be the game hackers
are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke -- neither he
nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”219 At
a public event held on August 8, 2016, Stone made his first of several public statements that he
had been in contact with Assange—a claim that he later amended to indicate the communication
was via a “mutual friend.”220
present for all interviews, and the interviews beginning on September 21, 2018 were conducted pursuant to
a proffer agreement that precluded affirmative use of his statements against him in limited circumstances.
214 7/25/16 Email, Corsi to Malloch.
215 Corsi 10/31/18 302, at 4.
216 Corsi 9/6/18 302, at 5.
217 7/31/16 Email, Stone to Corsi.
218 (b) (3)
Malloch denied ever communicating with Assange (b)(3)-1
or WikiLeaks, stating that he did not pursue the request to contact Assange because he believed he had no
connections to Assange. (b) (3)
219 8/2/16 Email, Corsi to Stone.
220 At the August 8, 2016 event, Stone stated, “I actually have communicated with Assange. I
believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the
October surprise may be.” “Roger Stone at the Southwest Broward Republican Organization,” YouTube
Channel “Stone Cold Truth,” Posted 8/10/16, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=6gM_cyROnto (starting at 46:50). On August 16, 2016, Stone stated during an interview, “I had
communicated with Mr. Assange,” then adding, “I never said I met with him or that I spoke with him,” but
said “we have a mutual acquaintance who is a fine gentleman.” “Roger Stone Discusses the Future Plans
of
WikiLeaks,”
YouTube
Channel
TheBlaze,
Posted
8/16/16,
available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=HfrzKmeXsrI (starting at 0:00).
55





U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Malloch stated to investigators that beginning in or about August 2016, he and Corsi had
multiple FaceTime discussions about WikiLeaks and Stone. On these calls, Corsi stated that Stone
had made a connection to Assange and that the hacked emails of John Podesta would be released
prior to Election Day and would be helpful to the Trump Campaign. In one conversation in or
around August or September 2016, Corsi told Malloch that the release of the Podesta emails was
coming, after which “we” were going to be in the driver’s seat.221
Beginning in August 2016, Stone began to communicate with another associate, Randy
Credico, about WikiLeaks. Credico, a New York radio show host, interviewed Assange on August
25, 2016.222 On August 26, 2016, Credico sent a text message to Stone that read “Julian Assange
talk[ed] about you last night.”223 Stone asked what Assange said, to which Credico responded,
“He didn’t say anything bad we were talking about how the Press is trying to make it look like you
and he are in cahoots.”224 The following day, Credico sent a text message stating, “Julian Assange
has kryptonite on Hillary.”225
In September 2016, Stone asked Credico to pass along a request to Assange for any emails
from the State Department or candidate Clinton that pertained to an event in 2011 when Clinton
was serving as Secretary of State.226 Credico agreed to pass along the request and sent the request
to an attorney who had regular contact with WikiLeaks. He included Stone on the email as a blind
copy.227 (In an interview with the Office, the attorney stated that she did not communicate the
request to WikiLeaks.228)
In late September and early October 2016, Credico and Stone communicated about possible
upcoming WikiLeaks releases. On October 1, 2016, Credico sent Stone text messages that read,
“big news Wednesday . . . now pretend u don’t know me . . . Hillary’s campaign will die this
week.”229 After a planned WikiLeaks press conference on October 2, 2016 was postponed, Stone
221 (b) (3)
(b)(3)-1
222 Interview of Julian Assange by Randy Credico on WBAI, Posted 8/25/16, available at
https://www.weblinenews.com/julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/.
Credico discussed the
interview with Stone a few days before the interview. On August 19, 2016, Credico sent a text message to
Stone that read in part, “I’m going to have Assange on my show next Thursday.” On August 21, 2016,
Credico sent another text message to Stone, writing in part “I have Assange on Thursday so I’m completely
tied up on that day.” 8/19-20/16 Text Messages, Credico to Stone.
223 8/26/16 Text Message, Credico to Stone.
224 8/26/16, Text Message, Credico to Stone.
225 8/27/16, Text Message, Credico to Stone.
226 9/18-19/16 Text Messages, Stone & Credico); 9/18/16 Email, Stone to Credico.
227 9/20/16 Email, Credico to Kunstler, bcc: Stone.
228 Kunstler 10/3/18 302, at 1.
229 The day before, on September 30, 2016, Credico sent Stone a photograph of Credico standing
outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Assange was living. Credico visited London in
September 2016 and stopped by the Ecuadorian Embassy to drop off a letter thanking Assange for
56






U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
emailed Credico to ask about the delay. Credico responded, “head fake.”230 On October 3, 2016,
Stone wrote Credico asking, “Did Assange back off.” Credico initially responded, “I can’t tal[k]
about it,” but later wrote, “I think its on for tomorrow.” Credico added, “Off the Record Hillary
and her people are doing a full-court press they keep Assange from making the next dump . . .
that’s all I can tell you on this line . . . Please leave my name out of it.”231 During an interview in
December 2018, Credico told the Office that he had not heard that claim from anyone specific and
did not recall why he wrote it to Stone.232
Stone repeated Credico’s October 2016 predictions about WikiLeaks to multiple people,
including persons involved with the Trump Campaign.233 On October 3, 2016, Stone received an
email from a reporter asking, “[Assange] – what’s he got? Hope it’s good.” Stone responded, “It
is. I’d tell Bannon but he doesn’t call me back.”234 On October 3, 2016, Stone emailed Erik
Prince—a campaign donor and occasional informal advisor, see Volume I, Section IV.B.2.a—to
say “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”235 The following day,
Prince emailed Stone to ask whether he had “hear[d] anymore from London.” Stone responded,
“Yes – want to talk on a secure line – got Whatsapp.”236 According to Prince, Stone and Prince
did speak subsequently, and Stone said that WikiLeaks would release more materials that would
be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. Stone also indicated to Prince that he had what Prince
described as almost “insider stock trading” type information about Assange.237 On October 4,
2016, after Assange completed a press conference without announcing new releases, Bannon
emailed Stone, “What was that this morning???” and asked if Assange had “cut a deal w/ Clintons.”
Stone emailed Bannon back telling him Assange was afraid, but that there would be a dump
coming once a week.238
participating in the August 2016 radio interview. According to Credico, he never spoke with Assange or (b)(3)-2
anyone from WikiLeaks that day. Credico 12/6/18 302, at 8. (b) (3), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (3), (b) (7)(E)
(b)(7)(E)-1
230 10/2/16 Email, Credico to Stone.
231 8/19/16 – 10/8/16 Text Messages, Credico & Stone.
232 Credico 12/6/18 302, at 9.
233 Stone also made one public statement that appears to have been spurred by his conversations
with Credico. On October 2, 2016, Stone participated in an InfoWars interview and said, “An intermediary
met with him in London recently who is a friend of mine and a friend of his, a believer in freedom. And I
am assured that the motherlode is coming Wednesday.” Trump Advisor Roger Stone Says He’s Been
‘Assured’ Through an Assange Intermediary that ‘The Mother Lode is Coming, Media Matters, Posted
10/3/16, available at https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/03/trump-advisor-roger-stone-says-he-
s-been-assured-through-assange-intermediary-mother-lode-coming/213488.
234 10/3/16 Email, Stone to
(b)(6)/
(b) (7)(C), (b) (6)
(b)(7)(C)-4
235 10/3/16 Email, Stone to Prince.
236 10/4/16 Email, Stone to Bannon.
237 Prince 5/3/18 302, at 7.
238 The communication followed a press conference by Assange in which he made no mention of
releasing materials related to candidate Clinton. Stone answered that Assange had a “[s]erious security
57








U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
d. WikiLeaks’s October 7, 2016 Release of Stolen Podesta Emails
On October 7, 2016, four days after the Assange press conference that Stone had discussed
with Trump Campaign officials, the Washington Post published an Access Hollywood video that
captured comments by candidate Trump some years earlier and that was expected to adversely
affect the Campaign.239 Less than an hour after the video’s publication, WikiLeaks released the
first set of emails stolen by the GRU from the account of Clinton Campaign chairman
John Podesta.
The Office investigated whether Roger Stone played any role in WikiLeaks’s
dissemination of the Podesta emails at that time. During his first September 2018 interview, Corsi
stated that he had refused Stone’s July 25, 2016 request to contact Assange, and that had been the
last time they had talked about contacting Assange.240 Email and text communications between
Stone and Corsi show that was false. During a later September 2018 interview, Corsi told the
Office that one of his WikiLeaks-related communications with Stone had occurred on October 7,
2016, just prior to WikiLeaks’s release.241 Corsi told the Office that he spoke with Stone before
publication of the Access Hollywood video and that Stone knew about the tape’s content and its
imminent release, both of which he relayed to Corsi.242
Corsi gave conflicting accounts of what happened after Stone purportedly informed him
about the video.243 Initially, Corsi told investigators that he had instructed Stone to have
WikiLeaks release information to counteract the expected reaction to the video’s release, and that
Stone said that was a good idea and would get it done. Later during the same interview, Corsi
stated that Stone had told Corsi to have WikiLeaks drop the Podesta emails immediately, and Corsi
told Stone he would do it. Corsi said that, because he had no direct means of communicating with
WikiLeaks, he told members of the news site WND—who were participating on a conference call
with him that day—to reach Assange immediately.244 Corsi claimed that the pressure was
concern” but that WikiLeaks would release “a load every week going forward.” 10/4/16 Email, Stone to
Bannon; Bannon 2/14/18 302, at 33.
239 Candidate Trump can be heard off camera making graphic statements about women.
240 Corsi 9/6/18 302, at 5–6.
241 Corsi 9/21/18 302, at 6.
242 Corsi 9/21/18 302, at 6.
243 Corsi 9/21/18 302, at 6.
244 In a later November 2018 interview, Corsi stated that he relayed Stone’s information in a
different conference call. Corsi initially stated that he believed Malloch was on the call but then focused
on other individuals who were on the call-invitation, which Malloch was not. (Separate travel records show
that at the time of the call, Malloch was aboard a transatlantic flight). Corsi at one point stated that after
WikiLeaks’s release of stolen emails on October 7, 2016, he concluded Malloch had gotten in contact with
Assange. Corsi 11/1/18 302, at 6.
58



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
enormous and recalled telling the conference call the Access Hollywood tape was coming.245 Corsi
stated that he was convinced that his efforts had caused WikiLeaks to release the emails when they
did.246 In a later November 2018 interview, Corsi stated that he thought that he had told people
on a WND conference call about the forthcoming tape and had sent out a tweet asking whether
anyone could contact Assange, but then said that maybe he had done nothing.247
The Office investigated Corsi’s allegations about the events of October 7, 2016 but found
little corroboration for his allegations about the day.248 In public statements, Stone has denied
having advance knowledge of the Access Hollywood tape.249 Telephone records show that, on the
morning of October 7, 2016, Stone had a conversation with a reporter from the Washington Post
(the first media outlet to publish the Access Hollywood video).250 However, the phone records
themselves do not indicate that the conversation was with any of the reporters who broke the
Access Hollywood story, and the Office has not otherwise been able to identify the substance of
the conversation. Telephone records show communication between Stone and Corsi on October
7, 2016, as well as Corsi’s participation in two conference calls that day.251 However, the Office
has not identified any conference call participant, or anyone who spoke to Corsi that day, who says
that they received non-public information about the tape from Corsi or acknowledged having
contacted a member of WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016 after a conversation with Corsi.
e. Donald Trump Jr. Interaction with WikiLeaks
Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the
campaign period. On September 20, 2016, an individual named Jason Fishbein sent WikiLeaks
the password for an unlaunched website focused on Trump’s “unprecedented and dangerous” ties
245 During the same interview, Corsi also suggested that he may have sent out public tweets because
he knew Assange was reading his tweets. Our Office was unable to find evidence of any such tweets.
246 Corsi 9/21/18 302, at 6-7.
247 Corsi 11/1/18 302, at 6.
248 (b) (3)
that, after the election, Corsi boasted that he and (b)(3)-1
Stone had played an important role in interacting with WikiLeaks during the Campaign, and they should
be given credit for what they had done with respect to WikiLeaks during the Campaign. (b) (3)
249 Chuck Ross, Jerome Corsi Testified That Roger Stone Sought WikiLeaks’ Help To Rebut ‘Access
Hollywood’ Tape, Daily Caller (Nov. 27, 2018) (quoting Stone as claiming that he did not have knowledge
of the tape until its publication).
250 Call Records of Roger Stone (b) (3)
(reflecting an 18-minute telephone
call with a Washington Post number starting at approximately 11:53 a.m.).
251 Call Records of Roger Stone (b) (3)
(showing a 17-minute telephone
call with Jerome Corsi starting at approximately 1:42 p.m., followed by a second twenty-minute telephone
call between the two starting at approximately 2:18 p.m.); Call Records of Jerome
(b) (3)
Corsi
(b) (3)
(showing a conference line for approximately fifteen minutes starting at approximately
2:00 p.m.).
59



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
the releases, the defendants used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to disseminate documents through
WikiLeaks. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents that
the hacking conspirators had stolen from the DNC. Netyksho Indictment ¶ 48. In addition, on
October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks began releasing emails that some conspirators had stolen from Clinton
Campaign chairman John Podesta after a successful spearphishing operation. Netyksho
Indictment ¶ 49.
One witness told the Office at one point that the initial release of Podesta emails on October
7 may have come at the behest of, or in coordination with, Roger Stone, an associate of candidate
Trump. As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1.d, supra, phone records show that Stone called
Jerome Corsi on October 7, after Stone received a call from the Washington Post. The Washington
Post broke a story later that day about a video recording of Trump speaking about women in
graphic terms. According to some of Corsi’s statements to the
(b) (3)
Office
Stone (b)(3)-1
said that he had learned about the imminent release of that tape recording, and it was expected to
generate significant negative media attention for the Campaign. Corsi told investigators that Stone
may have believed from their prior dealings that Corsi had connections to Julian Assange,
WikiLeaks’s founder, and that Stone therefore asked Corsi to tell Assange to start releasing the
Podesta emails immediately to shift the news cycle away from the damaging Trump recording.
Although Corsi denies that he actually had access to Assange, he told the Office at one point that
he tried to bring the request to Assange’s attention via public Twitter posts and by asking other
contacts to get in touch with Assange. The investigation did not establish that Corsi actually took
those steps, but WikiLeaks did release the first batch of Podesta emails later on the afternoon of
October 7, within an hour of the publication of the Washington Post’s story on the Trump tape.
(b)(5)-2
b. Charging Decision As to (b)(5)
(b)(5)
(b)(5)-2
278 (b)(5)
1278 The Office also considered, but ruled out, charges on the theory that the post-hacking sharing
and dissemination of emails could constitute trafficking in or receipt of stolen property under the National
Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315. The statutes comprising the NSPA cover
“goods, wares, or merchandise,” and lower courts have largely understood that phrase to be limited to
tangible items since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985). See
United States v. Yijia Zhang, 995 F. Supp. 2d 340, 344-48 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (collecting cases). One of those
post-Dowling decisions—United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991)—specifically held that
the NSPA does not reach “a computer program in source code form,” even though that code was stored in
tangible items (i.e., a hard disk and in a three-ring notebook). Id. at 1302-03. Congress, in turn, cited the
Brown opinion in explaining the need for amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) that “would ensure that
the theft of intangible information by the unauthorized use of a computer is prohibited in the same way theft
of physical items [is] protected.” S. Rep. 104-357, at 7 (1996). That sequence of events would make it
difficult to argue that hacked emails in electronic form, which are the relevant stolen items here, constitute
“goods, wares, or merchandise” within the meaning of the NSPA.
176



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
(b) (5), (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b)(6)/(b)(7)(C)-2
(b)(5)-2
C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts
As explained in Section IV above, the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of
numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or
claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office evaluated the contacts under several
sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate
in the United States. After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges
under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed in Section IV above—with the
exception of FARA charges against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates based on their activities on
behalf of Ukraine.
One of the interactions between the Trump Campaign and Russian-affiliated individuals—
the June 9, 2016 meeting between high-ranking campaign officials and Russians promising
derogatory information on Hillary Clinton—implicates an additional body of law: campaign-
finance statutes. Schemes involving the solicitation or receipt of assistance from foreign sources
raise difficult statutory and constitutional questions. As explained below, the Office evaluated
those questions in connection with the June 9 meeting and WikiLeaks’s release of stolen materials.
The Office ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably
to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or
individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.
Finally, although the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia-
affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several
U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other
steps to obstruct the Office’s investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore
charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice.
1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion
As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the
collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens
of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the
Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or
theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the
contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black’s Law
Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is “[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain
something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871)
(“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ
such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 352
180


U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
he had sent to a Russian government email account. Cohen Information ¶ 4. Cohen later asked
that his two-page statement be incorporated into his testimony’s transcript before SSCI, and he
ultimately gave testimony to SSCI that was consistent with that statement. Cohen Information ¶ 5.
Each of the foregoing representations in Cohen’s two-page statement was false and
misleading. Consideration of the project had extended through approximately June 2016 and
included more than three progress reports from Cohen to Trump. Cohen had discussed with Felix
Sater his own travel to Russia as part of the project, and he had inquired about the possibility of
Trump traveling there—both with the candidate himself and with senior campaign official Corey
Lewandowski. Cohen did recall that he had received a response to the email that he sent to Russian
government spokesman Dmitry Peskov—in particular, that he received an email reply and had a
follow-up phone conversation with an English-speaking assistant to Peskov in mid-January 2016.
Cohen Information ¶ 7. Cohen knew the statements in the letter to be false at the time, and
admitted that he made them in an effort (1) to minimize the links between the project and Trump
(who by this time was President), and (2) to give the false impression that the project had ended
before the first vote in the Republican Party primary process, in the hopes of limiting the ongoing
Russia investigations. Id.
Given the nature of the false statements and the fact that he repeated them during his initial
interview with the Office, we charged Cohen with violating Section 1001. On November 29, 2018,
Cohen pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a single-count information charging him
with making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) and (c). Cohen Information. The case was transferred to the
district judge presiding over the separate prosecution of Cohen pursued by the Southern District
of New York (after a referral from our Office). On December 7, 2018, this Office submitted a
letter to that judge recommending that Cohen’s cooperation with our investigation be taken into
account in sentencing Cohen on both the false-statements charge and the offenses in the Southern
District prosecution. On December 12, 2018, the judge sentenced Cohen to two months of
imprisonment on the false-statements count, to run concurrently with a 36-month sentence
imposed on the other counts.
v. Roger Stone
As explained more fully in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Roger Stone is a long-time
Trump associate, worked for the Trump Campaign briefly in 2015, and remained in contact with
senior Campaign officials through the campaign period. By no later than the summer of 2016,
Stone communicated with the Campaign about upcoming WikiLeaks releases of hacked materials
that were expected to harm Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Indictment ¶ 5, United States v. Roger
Jason Stone, Jr., No. 1:19-cr-18 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2019), Doc. 1 (“Stone Indictment”). Stone sent
author Jerome Corsi messages urging him to “[g]et to” Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, and received back correspondence from Corsi passing along “word [that] friend in
embassy plans 2 more dumps” in the summer and fall. Stone Indictment ¶ 13. Stone spoke
publicly about access to Assange and, after radio host Randy Credico interviewed Assange, Stone
asked Credico to contact and obtain information from Assange. Stone Indictment ¶¶ 14-15. And
in early October 2016, Stone assured individuals involved in the Campaign that a WikiLeaks
release was imminent. Stone Indictment ¶ 16.
196




U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
When asked to appear before HPSCI and provide documents, Stone caused a letter to be
submitted to HPSCI in May 2017 stating that he had no relevant records. Stone Indictment ¶ 19.
During his testimony before HPSCI in September 2017, Stone testified in pertinent part that he did
not have emails with third parties about Assange or any documents referring to Assange; that his
references in August 2016 to being in contact with Assange had been references to
communications with a single “intermediary,” whom Stone later identified as Credico; that Stone
did not ask this intermediary to communicate anything to Assange or to do anything on Stone’s
behalf; that the intermediary did not communicate via text message or email about WikiLeaks with
Stone; and that Stone had never discussed his conversations with the intermediary with anyone in
the Trump Campaign. Stone Indictment ¶¶ 20-22, 25, 29, 31, 35. Each of these statements was
false. Stone had in his custody or control email communications with Corsi and Credico about
Assange and WikiLeaks. Stone’s August 2016 public statements about access to Assange were not
solely about communications through Credico, who had not yet interviewed or met Assange at the
time. Stone had asked Credico to pass along a message to Assange and find out information from
him. Stone and Credico had communicated extensively over text message about WikiLeaks. And
Stone had discussed his contacts to Assange and an imminent WikiLeaks release with the Trump
Campaign, including in the days leading to the October 7, 2016 release of the Podesta emails.
Stone Indictment ¶¶ 23, 28, 30, 32, 35.
After falsely telling Congress that Credico was his lone “intermediary” or “go-between,”
Stone repeatedly contacted Credico in an effort to prevent Credico from contradicting Stone’s
statements to HPSCI. Between November and December 17, 2017, Stone texted Credico urging
him to “[s]tonewall” and “[p]lead the Fifth,” and stating that he should do a “Frank Pentangeli”
before HPSCI, a reference to a character in the The Godfather: Part II who testified before a
congressional committee and claimed not to know information incriminating a mafia figure in
perjury before the same committee. Stone Indictment ¶¶ 36-38. In 2018, after Credico advised
HPSCI that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, Stone continued to contact Credico,
calling him “a rat” and stating that he would “take that dog”—a reference to Credico’s support
dog—“away” from him. Stone Indictment ¶ 39.
Based on the foregoing conduct, on January 24, 2019, a grand jury in the District of
Columbia returned a seven-count indictment charging Stone with one count of obstructing and
endeavoring to obstruct a congressional proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505; five counts
of making false statements to Congress, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) and (c); and one count
of witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Stone Indictment. Stone has entered
a plea of not guilty to all charges and is currently pending trial.
vi. Jeff Sessions
As set forth in Volume I, Section IV.A.6, supra, the investigation established that, while a
U.S. Senator and a Trump Campaign advisor, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions interacted
with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the week of the Republican National Convention in July
2016 and again at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office in September 2016. The investigation also
established that Sessions and Kislyak both attended a reception held before candidate Trump’s
197