Longtime President TrumpDonald TrumpJulian Castro knocks Biden administration over refugee policy Overnight Energy & Environment — League of Conservation Voters — Climate summit chief says US needs to 'show progress' on environment Five takeaways from Arizona's audit results MORE ally Roger StoneRoger Jason StoneBannon says he discussed how to 'kill this administration in the crib' with Trump before Jan. 6 Roger Stone served with Capitol riot lawsuit during radio interview Lawyer for 17 Jan. 6 defendants says he's been released from hospital MORE on Monday slammed The Washington Post over a report that special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerSenate Democrats urge Garland not to fight court order to release Trump obstruction memo Why a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG Barr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel MORE is digging into Stone's alleged ties with WikiLeaks.
"Today’s Washington Post contains one of the shoddiest pieces of reporting that I have seen my 40 years in American Politics," Stone wrote in a statement forwarded to The Hill titled "THE WASHINGTON POST IS BUSTED."
The Post report says Mueller and his team have been digging into whether Stone knew in advance that WikiLeaks planned to release hacked Democratic National Committee emails in 2016. Stone claims he did not have prior knowledge of WikiLeaks's move.
Stone in his statement proceeded to mark up the Post's report, which he called "rife with inaccuracies and material omissions."
He also pushed back against the Post's characterization of his previous statements about those third-party connections.
The Post reported that Stone had said liberal comedian Randy Credico was his "only connection to the group," while Stone, in his statement, says that he stated Credico was his "principle [sic] source," but not his only source.
"What I said was that Credico himself was the confirming source who told me in late July or early August that Assange did indeed have material on the Democrats and would release it in October," Stone wrote.
He added that he agrees with Credico's testimony, saying he told Credico that he had an additional source who said, "the material was coming and that the revelations would address the Clinton Foundation."
That second source, according to Stone, was a journalist whose name the Post has but chose to omit. Stone did not identify that source in his statement.
Stone stated that Credico "volunteered that the information Wikileaks had on Clinton would be devastating."
Stone also addresses his connection with InfoWars Washington bureau chief Jerome Corsi, whom the Post reported Mueller is also investigating.
Stone states, "Dr. Corsi told me he was never in communication with Wikileaks or [Wikileaks founder Julian] Assange, I believe him and know of no evidence to the contrary."
Stone also pushed back against the Post's characterization of his statements about Corsi's contact with Trump, writing, "The Post seeks to imply that I am saying Dr. Corsi has done something wrong which is not the case."
Stone stated he had no communications with members of the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks and pushed back against the idea that his testimony before Congress was false.
"My testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was entirely truthful and there is no credible evidence to the contrary," Stone wrote.
Stone also argues that the Post left out important points of information in its report, including when he exchanged Twitter messages with a Twitter persona used by Russian military intelligence officers, which Stone said happened "weeks after WikiLeaks had already published the DNC materials."
Stone wrote that he knew Wikileaks had information related to Clinton because Assange had made public that it had damning information on Clinton in an interview conducted in June of 2016.
Stone concluded his response with a general push back against the idea that he had colluded with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee on the behalf of the Trump campaign, calling it a "left wing conspiracy theory" that is "yet unproven in a court of law."