Q.  Most people who follow politics know that you have a 40-year relationship with Donald Trump and the media is certainly focused on the fact that you appear to be in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s crosshairs.  You told the Palm Beach Post  last week that “you would never roll on Trump”.  What did you mean by that?

A.  At this point, Mr. Mueller and the FBI have interrogated at least 14 current or former associates of mine, at least 8 of whom have been dragged before the Grand Jury.  CNN has reported that Mueller has obtained all of my financial records and presumably my tax returns.  At least two people I am currently working with are informants for Mr. Mueller.  Yet with all of this, I am absolutely certain that the Special Counsel has no evidence of Russian collusion, collaboration with Wikileaks, or any evidence that I knew in advance of the acquisition or publication of John Podesta’s emails.  I think it is fair to say that Mr. Mueller is conducting an inquisition.

Q.  But what did you mean when you wouldn’t roll on Trump?

A.  That’s how these things work.  An out of control Federal Prosecutor finds alleged crimes by underlings and then uses them to induce these witnesses to bear false witness against a bigger fish.  It is entirely likely that Mueller is squeezing some of my current or former associates to tell lies about me. By the same token, Mueller may seek to bring some bogus charge against me to induce me to testify against the President.  I am not saying I have any negative information against the President- I’m saying I won’t be pressured into making shit up .This I will not do.


Q.  I see that Dr. Jerome Corsi has also been questioned by Mueller’s investigators and it is reported that he was called before the Grand Jury.  Corsi is, of course .the father of “Birtherism”, the idea that Barak Obama was not born in the United States, that his birth certificate is a forgery, and that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President.  What do you make of Mueller’s interest in Dr. Corsi?

A. Like every politico and journalist in America, I was keenly interested in finding out what was in the material Wikileaks had on Hillary.  As ABC News has reported with a very misleading headline, at one-point Corsi told me that a colleague of his, Ted Malloch, was in London and wanted to be helpful in the effort to elect Donald Trump.  I suggested that there were three things Malloch could do that would be useful.  The first was to try to track down Eileen Wellstone, a co-ed at Oxford who was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton.  After Senator Bernie Sanders’ brother who lived in London, made disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton, I suggested that Malloch solicit his endorsement for Trump, and lastly, I suggested Malloch try to see Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy to ascertain what was in the eagerly awaited Wikileak’s disclosures. 

I don’t believe Corsi ever passed these ideas to Malloch, but I do think the email in which I made these suggestions were the basis for Malloch’s being detained by the FBI when he entered the country to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family last year.  Malloch has insisted that he has never communicated or met with Assange or visited the Equadorian embassy so I believe Mr. Mueller is pursuing a dead end.

Again, it is important to note that I never received anything, including allegedly hacked e-mails from anyone including Guccifer 2.0, the Russians, Assange or Wiklieaks and passed them on to Donald Trump. It's a left wing conspiracy theory pushed by nut-jobs at MSNBC and Mother Jones and the Daily Beast. Total bullshit.

Q.  What about John Podesta’s emails.  I noticed that as recently as last week Chris Cuomo on CNN was recycling the allegation that a tweet of yours on August 21st was somehow proof that you knew in advance that Wikileaks had obtained John Podesta’s emails.

A.  It requires a willful bastardization of my now iconic tweet to reach that conclusion.  It is important to recognize the context of that tweet.  It happens at a time that the Clinton campaign is actively promoting stories about Paul Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine.  Dr. Jerome Corsi , who I mentioned earlier ,brought my attention to a story in Breitbart News in which Peter Sweitzer reported that Tony Podesta had worked with Paul Manafort as a lobbyist for the Ukrainian political party that Manafort worked for.  Additionally, Corsi pointed out that the Panama Papers published in April of 2016 had exposed the Podesta brothers’ lucrative business activities with the oligarchs around Putin, including gas, uranium and banking deals.  My August 21st tweet says “THE Podesta’s time in the barrel will come”.  The media has consistently deleted the word “the” because it clearly refers to two people, John and Tony Podesta.  The apostrophe ‘s’ is of course the plural possessive and is therefore grammatically correct.  The point is this in no way refers to or foreshadows the release of John Podesta’s incredibly embarrassing or incriminating emails.


Q.  I noticed that the UK Daily Mail said you were “fretting” an indictment by the special counsel.

A.  I have said that I am concerned of being framed and railroaded by the Special Counsel.  While I am certain Mr. Mueller would like to charge me with Russian collusion or collaboration with Wikileaks that he claims is illegal, there is no evidence or witness that could prove these charges truthfully.  That said, Mueller and his boys could concoct some other charge to pressure me to testify against the President. I could see them bring some process charge against me. It would be pretty transparent. They are amazingly obtuse about their own acts of misconduct in a corrupted process. It would set off a chain of events they may regret.

Q.  I see that Randy Credico, the former New York radio talk show host, said that he testified to the Grand Jury that he was not an intermediary between you and Julian Assange.


A.  If Mr. Credico said that he perjured himself.  Everything I knew in advance about the Hillary-DNC material published by Wikileaks I learned by following the Wiki Leaks tweeter feed, reading every publicly interview with Julian Assange or from the mouth of Randy Credico.

Q.  What do you mean?

A.  Assange gave an interview to CNN in June of 2016 in which he said he had a large body of material on Hillary Clinton and that he would publish it.  Credico confirmed this in multiple conversations in late July and early August insisting the material would be “devastating”.  I stress that Credico never said anything about the source or content of this material but insisted it would be released in October.

Q.  But Credico insists that he did not meet in interview Assange until late August and therefore it would be impossible for him to have told you this at the end of July or in early August.

A.  Credico never said Assange was his source.  In fact, Randy has a 30+ year relationship with a lawyer who represents Wikileaks who is certainly the source of his limited knowledge.  When I proved this relationship to the Wall Street Journal in response to Randy’s claim, they declined to include it in their coverage.  Likewise, when I pointed it out to Mike Isikoff for his book on alleged Russian collusion it was omitted.  That’s how the mainstream media rolls.

Q.  No interview with you is complete without a question regarding your communication with Guccifer 2.0 who it is alleged is a Russian hacker and who the Justice Department insists hacked the DNC and passed the material to Wikileaks.

A.  This is one of the great smears of all times.  If you go on line you will find a dozen stories, the headline of which is essentially “Trump Associate Admits Communication with Russian Hacker”.  The claim by DOJ that Guccifer hacked the DNC and was working for the Russians is at best unproven.  You can see a long piece here which indicates that there is forensic evidence to the contrary.  More importantly, the “communication” they refer to is a 24-word exchange on Twitter direct messages which takes place weeks after the DNC material had already been published by Wikileaks.  The content of our exchange is innocuous and certainly provides no evidence of collusion or collaboration.  So, based on timing, content, and context this “communication” is a nothingburger.  It’s funny that when I explained this the media shortens it simply to ”Stone denies any wrong-doing”.


Q.  I noticed that your now famous exchange with Guccifer 2.0 is included in the indictment of the 17 Russian intelligence officers charged by Mr. Mueller and announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

A.  Yes, it’s curious in view of Rosenstein’s statement at the time"there is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime "and the report by CNBC that"Rosenstein also highlighted that Friday's indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in the Russian operation." The entire indictment is clever in the sense that it recycles the claim that Guccifer is a Russian asset and that he hacked the DNC, and passed the material on to Wiki Leaks.  Surely Mr. Mueller is aware of the fact that this indictment will never come to trial and that the Government’s allegations, now cited as fact by the media, will never be proven.  The indictment claims that Guccifer left digital fingerprints in his hack that prove that he is a Russian.  The indictment ignores CIA documents published by Wiki Leaks which show that the agency has the ability to plant these digital fingerprints to make it appear that a hack came from a source other than the actual perp.

Q.  The personal and financial strain of this investigation of you must be draining.  How are you doing?

A.  I have been sued and won a defamation case.  I was sued by an Obama directed legal front group making the same discredited claims that I received allegedly hacked DNC emails from Wikileaks and passed it on to Donald Trump and that lawsuit was dismissed.  I now face a lawsuit from the DNC based on the same false claim.  Even though there are a dozen other defendants in that lawsuit, only my lawyers have asked for preservation of the DNC computer servers which have never been examined by the FBI.  An examination of which could prove once and for all whether the DNC was hacked at all or whether the purloined data was more likely downloaded to some sort of portable drive and taken out the back door.  Additionally, my lawyers are sparring with the Senate Intelligence Committee over their refusal to allow me to testify in public and a ridiculously broad document demand under which I would have to hand over literally hundreds of thousands of documents and emails.  I also have Robert Mueller and his gumshoes boring into every aspect of my family, business, social, personal and political life.  My legal fees are well over half a million dollars and are projected to cost as much as two million dollars before this witch-hunt is over.  In truth, I face bankruptcy and financial ruin for my family.


Q.  But I read a story on line that said you are worth 20 million dollars.

A.  That is laughable.  I assume that story was planted in order to dampen my legal defense fundraising efforts.  I am not a wealthy man.  I own no stocks, bonds, or real estate.  My suits, while of outstanding quality, are in most cases 20 years old.  The five books I have written have been modestly successful with my first book “The Man Who Killed Kennedy-The Case Against L.B.J.” becoming a New York Times bestseller.  Unfortunately, I have been forced to liquidate a small fund generated by book sale proceeds to pay for the college education of my grandchildren.  People who want to help can donate at


Q.  We would be remiss if we didn’t ask you about the Florida Governor’s race.  Current polls show Democrat Andrew Gillum with a narrow lead over former Congressman Ron DeSantis.  How do you see the race?

A.  I am supporting the Republican candidate, Ron DeSantis, although I voted in the Republican Primary for Bob White.  That said, I think DeSantis has made a substantial error when he said he supported Governor Rick Scott’s appeal to the State Court seeking to ban the smoking of medicinal marijuana.  The legalization of medicinal marijuana in Florida was approved by 71.5% of the voters.  Incredibly the legislature passed enabling legislation that allows patients to obtain cannabis but not to smoke it ! Under this law, patients would be required to either own a vape devise or to take the more expensive orals.  Trial attorney and medical marijuana advocate John Morgan challenged this smoking ban in court and won.  Now Governor Rick Scott is postponing the inevitable by filing an appeal to that ruling essentially making hundreds of thousands of people wait for the medicine they use as an alternative to opioids.  DeSantis told Politico that he supports Governor Scott’s appeal.  DeSantis could be held responsible by voters who feel strongly about this issue.

In Gillum I see the very same phenomena that surrounded Obama’s candidacy which allowed him to carry Florida twice.  The historic and charismatic nature of Gillum’s candidacy obscures a closer examination of his extreme views and his advocacy of what is essentially Socialism.   I do see this as a “Base Election” which will be determined who does a better job of getting out their vote.  At this point it appears that the Democrats have greater intensity among their supporters.

Q.  Thank you.


About Patrick Slevin  - Twitter:  @patrickjslevin  

 Influence Magazine named Patrick Slevin one of Florida’s “Great Communicators” in 2017.   Slevin is recognized by Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of the nation’s top political “Movers’ & Shakers. He is a two-time winner of the PRSA Silver Anvil Award of Excellence for Crisis & Issues Management.  He is a former Florida mayor. He heads his communications and stakeholder engagement firm, SL7 Consulting, based in Tallahassee, Florida. 


Patrick Slevin is the publisher of THE INFLUENTIAL forum and e-newsletter.  Sign up for our E-newsletter to begin receiving exclusive information about the People, Politics and Power that influence your bottom line interests. Go to