Transcript for Roger Stone: 'No evidence to support' that I was link between WikiLeaks and Trump
I don't believe that I'll be charged in any crime that relates to Russian collusion. Or wikileaks collaboration. I'm certainly guilty of bluffing. And, posturing. And punking the Democrats. Unless they pass some law against bull And I missed it. I'm engaging in trade craft. It's politics. That was Roger stone back in October. Since then, a series of reports suggest he may be the next target of special counsel Robert Mueller. There you see the headlines. ABC Robert Mueller appears laser-focused on Roger stone. Mueller bores into trump adviser Roger stone's ties to wikileaks. The Washington post, trump's night owl calls to Roger stone draw scrutiny. "New York Times" -- Roger stone sought wikileaks' plans amid 2016 campaign. Roger stone is here with us now. Welcome to "This week." It does appear Robert Mueller is developing the case that you were a key part of this whole Russia investigation. Russia funnels the hacked e-mails to wikileaks. You're the conduit between wikileaks and the trump campaign. Are you confident you won't be indicted? None of that is true, of course. There's no evidence to support that supposition. It's now two years in. $30 million. I think few Americans could withstand the kind of legal proctological examination that Mr. Mueller has put me under. According to "The New York Times" I was under surveillance by the Obama administration in 2016. They wrote that on January 20, 2017. Today there is still no evidence whatsoever of Russian collusion between the Russian state and the trump campaign. Involving wikileaks or not involving wikileaks. You say no evidence. I just want to put up, we knew that Mueller has talked to about a dozen of your associates. We know he's asked about your contacts. We want to show some of the evidence that's just come out. July 25, 2016, an e-mail from you to Jerome Corsi where you say get to assange. At the Ecuadorian embassy. Get the pending wikileaks e-mail. A July 31st e-mail to Corsi. You talk about a British man named Ted Malloch. You say Malloch should go see assange. Corsi e-mails back to you, word is our friend in the embassy -- that must be assange -- plans two more dumps. Impact planned to be very damaging. Another e-mail to another associate of yours on August 4th. I dined with my new pal, Julian assange last night. August 8th, you said this to a group of Republicans down in Florida. I actually have a -- communicated with assange. I believe the next bunch of documents pertain to the Clinton foundation. But now you say you never communicated with assange at all despite the documentary evidence at the time. First of all, let's take them backwards. I clarified that last one a dozen times. I identified I had a source. A Progressive New York City radio host who told me in late July that whatever wikileaks had. Whatever assange had alluded to quite openly on CNN in June and again on fox in August was devastating. Was a bombshell. It would come in October. I identified that source. I was ridiculed in the media repeatedly. Last week, I produced text messages that prove indisputably that he was my source. His source was a woman attorney working for wikileaks. You won't find that in "The new York Times," "The Washington post," "The Wall Street journal." Let's go back to the quotes. The same day I got an e-mail forwarded to me from James Rosen of Fox News. Saying he had a tip that the wikileaks disclosures pertained to the Clinton foundation. Yes, I contacted Jerry Corsi because, at some point, Ted Malloch who I met once, had dropped assange's name. Like every politico in America. Like every political reporter, I was interested in what exactly they had. But there was no response to that. If I send an e-mail and say, we should rob a bank and you don't rob a bank -- So you're saying you never spoke to Julian assange? Never contacted wikileaks. Never spoke about any of that to president trump? That is absolutely correct. I turned over one direct message between the flack between wikileaks and I, is which he brushed me off. That leaked to "Atlantic" magazine. Who edited the context and publishes it. I had no contact with assange. Assange himself has said Roger stone is a brilliant spin master. We have had no communication with him whatsoever. If Robert Mueller develops evidence and says he can show you did talk to wikileaks and did communicate with president trump? That's all speculation. There is no such evidence. And in fact, going back to the e-mail, I think those have been mischaracterized. Saying the dumps are coming turns out to be completely incorrect. They don't come in early August as predicted by Mr. Corsi. There's no reference to podesta's e-mails either. It simply says podesta will be exposed to the American people. Whatever that means. It's not as if those things had not been widely published in August. Have you had any contact with Robert Mueller or his prosecutors? We have not. None at all? Correct. Doesn't that suggest you're a target? Usually they speak with the witnesses first. It suggests nothing at all. Again. Where is the crime? I engaged in politics. My purpose was to take a tip, which I thought to be solid, and then, after that, to follow the wikileaks Twitter feed and send a Google news alert for Julian assange and use Twitter to hype as much voter and media attention to the disclosure when they came as politics. You were in this business once. That's called politics. You're proud of your work as a dirty trickster. Did you do any dirty tricks in the trump campaign? The characterization of dirty trickster comes from the Democrats. It will probably be on my epitaph. Self-proclaimed. You have said it, as well. Find me the quote where I have self-proclaimed it. I have never done anything in politics that was outside the norms of my colleagues and my contemporaries. I have always made it clear that so-called dirty tricks come up to but do not cross the line into illegality. Did anyone in the trump campaign cross the line? Not that I'm aware of. Again, I see some confusion in the public between low-key Russian meddling, ineffective. $100,000 in poorly written Facebook ads. And Russian collusion between the trump campaign and the Russian state, which, to this day, there is no evidence of and no proof of. Say you're always going to be loyal to president trump. If you're indicted or convicted, do you suspect he'll pardon you? First of all, generally speaking in politics, you avoid hypothetical questions. That said, there's no circumstance that I would testify against the president because I would have to bear false witness. I would have to make things up. I'm not going to do that. I have had no discussion regarding a pardon. The only person I pushed for a pardon for is Marcus Garvey, who I think should be pardoned posthumously. Not Paul manafort? I have had no such discussions. He says it's not on the table right now. Any pardon of Paul manafort. You have had no discussions with the president or anybody in his team about this? That is correct. Roger stone, thank you for your time this morning. Thank you.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.