With the passing of corrupt FBI Director and Russiagate Special Counsel it’s necessary to outline why his case against me was a fraud intended to pressure me into testifying falsely against President Donald Trump. something I refused to do.
Late in the night on election day 2020, just hours before the legal deadline imposed, the U.S. Department of Justice complied with a federal court decision ordering it to release the last remaining redacted sections of the so-called ‘Mueller Report’ that had been hidden since the report’s publication nearly 18 months earlier.
At midnight on election day, November 3rd, 2020- the busiest news day of the year and timed to get as little press coverage as possible, the United States Department of Justice released the remaining unredacted sections of the Mueller Report regarding me specifically, in which they had admitted that despite two years of intense investigation, spending millions to pour through every aspect of my life, dragging 36 witnesses to the grand jury and after obtaining all my electronic communications for four years (literally millions of e-mails and pages of documents, tax returns, banking, and financial records –they found no factual evidence of any collaboration or coordination between me and WikiLeaks regarding the release of emails regarding John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton or that I had any advance knowledge of the timing, content or source of their disclosures).
Even BuzzFeed, who won the release of the data in a lawsuit actually said I was “vindicated”. The rest of the media? They reported nothing at all.
The report is a voluminous effort by the ‘Special’ Counsel’s unethical, if not criminally-corrupt, lawyers, as their prolonged, baseless, partisan-motivated legal fishing expedition finally came to an end, to blunt the logical conclusion by the public that the entire corrupt multi-year multi-million dollar boondoggle was, in reality, a malicious fraud against President Donald Trump and anyone who supported him and a runaway purveyor of kangaroo “justice” against its unfortunate political targets.
For its hundreds of pages tediously propping up a convoluted defamatory narrative now known to be nothing more than a brazen fabrication by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, the report is rife with highly-parsed wording, deceitful innuendo, and presumptuous, conclusory leaps of illogic, often delving into irrelevant minutiae, engaging in misleading factual cherry-picking and employing officious-sounding spin as dishonest substitutes for evidence that never existed. Despite this sugar-coating what the unredacted documents do show is shocking.
Specifically, the newly unveiled documents say:
On Page 178,
“The Office’s determination that it could not charge WikiLeaks or Stone as part of the Section 1030 conspiracy was also informed by the constitutional issues that such a prosecution would present. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin.”
Also Page 178,
“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones. 1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).
“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”
Judge Amy Berman withheld this from my lawyers at trial. The Mueller’s dirty cops concluded in their report that even if they had found evidence that I had received documents from Assange of WikiLeaks and passed them to anyone, which I did not and for which they found no evidence whatsoever, it would not have been illegal. The whole thing was a hoax.
For three years the fake News media has insisted that Julian Assange (a journalist who has never had the accuracy of anything he has published questioned) is actually an asset for the Russians and that his website Wikileaks got the documents and e-mails via a hack via the Russians.
Worse they insisted that I had served as the link between Assange and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. I was called a traitor and a Russian spy. The left insisted that my colorful Twitter feed and some of my speeches and interviews proved that I had advance knowledge of the source and content of the WikiLeaks disclosures that so roiled the 2016 campaign. I was falsely accused of having advance knowledge of the publication of John Podesta’s e-mails.
The only three news outlets who reported on this shocking election day admission that there was no evidence found that would support this narrative were BuzzFeed, who successfully brought the lawsuit for the release of this material, the Washington Examiner and ZeroHedge. Where were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Hill, Politico, Salon, Vox, Vice, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and the Business Insider – all of who were quick to smear me as a “go-between for WikiLeaks and the Trump Campaign” but none of whom reported on the stunning conclusions of Mueller’s thugs.
It is important to note that the only communication I had with Wikileaks was via Twitter direct message and was fully disclosed and supplied to the House Intelligence Committee at the time of my testimony in 2017. Even this exchange proves nothing- yet Mueller’s thugs tried to pretend it was some kind of bombshell.
The media lynch mob that smeared me is a typical example of the bias and the fraudulence of the corporately-owned fake news media. The headlines below reflect just a small sample of the inaccurate and malicious reporting by the fake news media. Every one of these stories is disproven by the November 3rd disclosure by the US Department of Justice. Every one of these stories includes fundamental falsehoods, Inaccurate leaks from the Special Counsel’s office, the omission of important facts, and the relentless pushing of an entirely false narrative.
NY TIMES – Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and Wikileaks
NY TIMES – Roger Stone Sold Himself to Trump’s Campaign as a WikiLeaks Pipeline. Was He?
NY TIMES – Roger Stone Was in Contact With Julian Assange in 2017, documents show
NY TIMES – Stone Trial Links Trump More Closely to 2016 Effort to Obtain Stolen Emails
CNN – Mueller indicts Roger Stone, says he was coordinating with Trump officials about WikiLeaks’ stolen emails
CNN – Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks
Reuters – Mueller says searches yielded evidence of Stone-WikiLeaks communications
The Hill – FBI releases documents showing Roger Stone, Julian Assange communications
The Atlantic – Roger Stone’s Secret Messages with WikiLeaks
The Guardian – I saw Roger Stone as ‘access point’ to WikiLeaks in 2016, Bannon tells court
POLITICO – Steve Bannon: Roger Stone was our unused WikiLeaks ‘access point’
Huffington Post – FBI Documents Reveal Communication Between Roger Stone, Julian Assange
Huffington Post – How WikiLeaks, Paul Manafort And Roger Stone Fit Into The Mueller Investigation
Huffington Post – Roger Stone Pressed For Damaging Emails About Hillary Clinton From WikiLeaks: Report
Business Insider & AP – FBI documents reveal that Roger Stone was in direct communication with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
Business Insider – Mueller is looking into a stunning claim former Trump associate Roger Stone made about a meeting with Julian Assange
Business Insider – Roger Stone communicated with WikiLeaks about hacked Democratic emails, says Mueller investigation
New York Intelligencer – Mueller Investigating Whether Roger Stone Had Dinner With Assange
New York Intelligencer – Trump Floats Pardon of Russia-Scandal Accomplice Roger Stone
New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Sought Clinton Emails From Assange in September 2016
New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Knew in Advance About About the Stolen Emails. Did He Tell Trump?
Washington Post – The Roger Stone indictment fills in new details about WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign
VICE – Why Roger Stone could be Mueller’s next target in the Russia probe
VICE – Roger Stone says he doesn’t “think” he discussed WikiLeaks with Paul Manafort
VICE – Trump surrogate Roger Stone claims ‘devastating’ WikiLeaks bombshells to come
MSNBC – Roger Stone Tried to Walk Back Claims About Julian Assange
MSNBC – Stone trial testimony sheds new light on Trump, WikiLeaks connections
MSNBC – Roger Stone faces new questions about alleged WikiLeaks connections
MSNBC – Roger Stone link to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Uncovered
NBC – Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans
Salon-Roger Stone admits to 2016 phone conversation with Julian Assange: Report
Sharon LaFrontiere of the New York Times, Roz Helderman of the Washington Post, Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, the odious Natasha Bertrand, then of Atlantic Magazine, now at Politico, the vile Jonathan Chiat of New York Magazine, Daniel Friedman at Mother Jones, Andrew Prokop of Vox, Sara Murray of CNN, congenital liar Ari Melber of MSNBC, NBC propagandist and long -time CIA plant Ken Dilanian, (who was actually fired by the Chicago Tribune for clearing his stories with the Agency) – are just a handful of the “reporters” who defamed me repeatedly with a torrent of lies and distortions, none of whom had the courtesy or professionalism to report the Nov 3 disclosures which prove that virtually all of their reporting on my case and the Mueller witch hunt efforts to destroy me, were flawed, distorted and based on the fundamental principles of honest journalism should now be retracted or corrected. I won’t hold my breath.
It wasn’t just the nut jobs like Mother Jones, the Daily Beast, Salon and nutty bloggers like Marcy Wheeler but allegedly responsible media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and MSNBC became obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.
I often joke with some of my associates as to what newspaper in the United States is the worst when it comes to trafficking in the mainstream media narrative in which they told us that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian intelligence in the 2020 elections and repeatedly asserted the questionable claim by US Intelligence that Julian Assange was a Russian asset and that the Democratic National Committee’s servers were hacked by the Russians.
Not surprisingly, none of these reporters or outlets reported on the declassified documents ultimately liberated from the national security bureaucrats by acted DNI Director, Rick Grenell which prove that now not even Crowdstrike stands behind the claim that there is forensic proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. The intelligence services and the FBI knew from the beginning that the Steele dossier had been compiled with the assistance of Russian intelligence and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Actually, there is no question whatsoever that the Washington Post is the most dishonest and blatant purveyor of falsehoods. This timeline, for example, compiled by Phillip Bump is a perfect example of a completely false narrative now disproved in the actual words of the Mueller report. Bump’s reporting at the Washington Post stands out as the most dishonest, inaccurate, contrived, defamatory coverage of the ordeal I went through. This timeline, for example at the Washington Post – “A timeline of the Roger Stone-WikiLeaks question” should be nominated for a fiction writing prize.
Bump is, of course, the ‘journalist” who insisted in the pages of the worst newspaper in America that there was never any evidence that Bill Clinton ever sexually assaulted any woman.
I was also vilified for in innocuous Twitter direct message exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 who our Intelligence Chiefs insist is a Russian operative and responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign emails on behalf of the Russians. In fact, the identity of Guccifer 2.0 and the claim that he is a Russian assets is based on a series of cyber fingerprints that no real Russian Spy who wanted to have his intrusions undetected would leave and the CIA’s extensive report on how to hack a server and make it look like it came from elsewhere in the Vault 7 disclosures of CIA dirty laundry published by Wikileaks.
“Roger Stone admits contact with Russian Intelligence” the headlines falsely screamed. Even if he was Vladimir Putin himself the fact that the entire exchange took place long after the Clinton documents had been obtained and published by Wikileaks– meaning my involvement in the alleged hack of those would be impossible and the exchange itself proves no collaboration or collusion- because I released SCREEN SHOTS of the entire exchange in 2017.
The left never lets facts get in the way of a good smear.
So in other words the claim that my innocent and innocuous exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter DM which I myself released publicly, was proof of collusion between the GRU and the Trump campaign is disproved by the context, timing, and content of the exchange which took place after the release of DNC documents by Wikileaks Mueller himself revived this chestnut in the Washington Post Op-Ed written for him by little Andy Weissmann.
For two years leaked stories predicting that although I had no formal role in the President’s campaign I would be charged with “Conspiracy Against the United States” “Foreign Contribution Ban” “Fraud and Related Activities in Connection with Computers” “Wire Fraud” “Aiding and Abetting a conspiracy” “Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer” “Accessory After the Fact to the commission of a felony”. Indeed, Aaron Zelinsky the prosecutor on the Mueller team who previously worked as Deputy Counsel for Hillary Clinton at the State Department would represent to multiple Federal Judges and magistrates that he had probable cause to investigate me on these ridiculous charges to obtain search warrants to access (and trash) my computers, my cell phone, my text messages, my paper files, my business records, my Florida home, my Florida studio and my New York City Apartment.
This is why they had to find something else, anything else, to charge me with. The ‘Lying to Congress” charges are a tortured stretch. The witness tampering charge is a bogus concoction. The witness I allegedly tampered with – Randy Credico – threatened to put a bullet in the head of one of my associates who was subpoenaed to the grand jury, if he contradicted Credico’s (false) testimony.
No misstatement I made to the House Intelligence Committee hid any underlying crime, meaning I had no motive to lie. The argument made by prosecutors at my trial, that I lied to hide the Trump campaigns interest in the Wikileaks disclosures because it would ” look bad” for Donald Trump is ludicrous in view of the fact that candidate Trump himself discussed the WikiLeaks disclosures 142 times in September and October of 2016 according to MSNBC. If I had been given a fair trial, with an honest Judge who did not bar every powerful defense and had an honest unbiased jury, I might have been acquitted.
The report’s previously blacked-out pages reveal what is, in effect, a confession by Special Counsel operatives that they had absolutely nothing to substantiate any prosecutable offenses against myself, Wikileaks, or the Trump campaign, despite their efforts to torture the law to its limits to obtain their desired outcomes.
Most astonishingly, after explaining they had no evidence to support criminal charges for what they knew full well were perfectly-legal efforts to raise awareness and promote public scrutiny of Democrat corruption, as chronicled in an authentic record of the Democrats’ own communications, the report further confesses that their investigative targets like me had substantial 1st Amendment-based defenses, likely to overcome any attempted criminal prosecution. In other words, the Mueller gang now admits that my efforts to promote public awareness of the Wikileaks disclosures was perfectly legal. Shove that up your ass, Natasha Bertand.
My constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press, as exercised in totally-legal political and election campaign activities attempting to inform the public about Clinton Democrat corruption ahead of a presidential election, were maliciously violated by cynical, criminally power-abusive Special Counsel thugs.
The same goes for the rights of the President and those in the Trump Campaign who likewise sought to legally bring public light to information highly-relevant to the 2016 presidential election.
It is clear from the recently declassified materials released by ODNI Tulsi Gabbard that the Special Counsel, by its own admission, was fully aware it had no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that either WikiLeaks, the Trump Campaign or I had done anything illegal concerning the Clinton-DNC email corruption expose. Moreover, they admit that our efforts were in fact constitutionally-protected political and journalistic activities.
The short of this is that the malicious prosecution visited on me as a parting shot by the failed Special Counsel, just as it finally ended its nearly two-year witch hunt, was nothing more than a sensationalist ass-covering distraction and a cynical ploy intended to superficially justify the Special Counsel’s pointless, prolonged existence, after spending almost two years to come up with literally nothing whatsoever of any substance or credibility to support the BIG LIE on which it was dishonestly founded and perpetuated.
When this ulterior-motivated, malicious prosecution against me entered the federal court system it was before a hostile partisan judge whom the Special Counsel had purposefully “shopped” into the case through one of the prosecution team’s many false, misleading representations made to the U.S. District Court throughout the case. They knew quite well what they were doing when they fraudulently secured Amy Berman-Jackson as the trial judge in my case.
Prosecutors insisted that my case must be tried before Judge Jackson because it was ‘related” to the case of the 17 alleged Russian Intelligence officers who they claim hacked the DNC and gave the purloined data to Wikileaks, a contention of the Government which they relied totally on an analysis by Crowdstrike, a Clinton-friendly IT Security firm. Except Crowdstrike now denies that conclusion. In fact, prosecutors promised Judge Jackson they would introduce evidence obtained by search warrant in that case at my trial. They didn’t produce any such thing but they got the Trump-hating Judge they wanted- and lied to do it.
My attorneys were successful in getting the government to admit that the only “evidence” they had that Russian intelligence agents had computer hacked the Democratic National Committee was this redacted draft report from the Democratic-aligned IT Firm Crowdstrike and that the FBI had never actually examined the DNC servers.
When this news hit the media like a bombshell, out-of-control left-wing Judge Amy Berman Jackson tightened the unconstitutional gag order on me to prevent me from discussing the shocking revelation and the prosecutor in my case Jonathan Kravis, a former Deputy White House Counsel to President Barack Obama after clerking for left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and failed Supreme Court nominee and far-left D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, filed a sur reply with the court falsely claiming that the US Government and the Mueller investigation had additional evidence to bolster their claim that the Russians hacked the DNC. We now know based on the documents declassified to date that no such proof exists and that Kravis defrauded the court.
The secrecy of this entire process is obsessive. The 76 pages of e-mails turned over to BuzzFeed News by the Executive Office of US Attorneys were heavily redacted. The agency withheld 152 pages in releasing the emails Nov. 3rd and indicated some of those records are sealed and others were referred to the FBI for review. These many redactions need to be explained or removed. This isn’t some national security case. There are no sensitive intelligence, diplomatic or military implications. All parties involved are U.S. citizens. There is no continuing investigation nor other pending cases involving its subject matter.
This is a domestic criminal prosecution of a sole defendant by jury trial in a federal district court for offenses implicating only legislative oversight of domestic political activities. A prosecutor in the case made a public protest of withdrawing from the case over the government’s alleged handling of the sentencing. He then volunteered public testimony to a legislative oversight committee alleging that the handling of the sentencing by his prosecution team was subject to undue influence by DOJ officials for ulterior political motives. Yet according to the Washington Post three top senior non-political Officers at DOJ have denied the under-oath testimony of Rogue prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky in which he claimed all three had told him of ‘political pressure to ‘go easy” on Roger Stone. When will Zelinsky be indicted for lying to Congress? Why is Zelinsky still working in the Trump Justice Department?
Loose cannon Aaron Zelinsky isn’t the only one who lied under oath. When Steve Bannon’s House Intelligence Committee testimony was declassified we learned that his testimony at my trial in which he was Mueller’s star witness was directly contradicted by his sworn testimony before the House Committee. In fact, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who reviewed both transcripts told the New York Post “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry.” Turley said. “He (Bannon) has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley noted.
Additionally, federal prosecutors had an obligation under the law to inform us that Steve Bannon was actively under investigation and knew this to be the case at the time that he offered false testimony against me. The prosecutors in my case who were well aware of the discrepancies between Bannon’s house testimony and his testimony understand my trial knowingly suborned perjury.
Specifically, in the summer before trial, my defense team asked Berman-Jackson to order the DOJ to disgorge the Mueller report’s many redacted sections about me for our evaluation and possible use as exculpatory evidence, if not as evidence of prosecutorial deceit and manipulation in violation of my constitutional rights as a criminal defendant.
Berman-Jackson’s response to this motion was to withhold her ruling and order the DOJ to turn over the unredacted report to her for her ‘in camera’ (or behind closed doors) evaluation of the contents before deciding whether to grant or deny our motion. After receiving the unredacted report from the DOJ, per her order, and reviewing its contents out of view of the defense (the prosecution already knew what was in it), Berman-Jackson summarily denied our motion, gave us numerous unredacted sections of the hidden material that was innocuous or meaningless without context but withheld the material that even Buzzfeed said “vindicated“ me.
Berman-Jackson fully understood that evidence from the Special Counsel’s own report which unequivocally negated the entire premise of its pending prosecution against me — namely, a nefarious conspiracy to steal Democrat emails and collude with the Russians — would likely be devastating to the case against me for false statements to a partisan committee supposedly investigating what they and Special Counsel knew to be legal, constitutionally-protected political and press activities.
Berman-Jackson knew what a death blow it would likely be to the Special Counsel’s inflated charges against me for purported false statements and witness tampering, if it came to light that this prosecution was entirely based on an effort to violate, suppress and punish my 1st Amendment-protected political activities, and that the Special Counsel knew all along that this was what they were doing.
I thank God almighty and President Donald Trump for recognizing that I did nothing wrong and granting me an unconditional Pardon at Christmas of 2020.
