Op-ed: Roger Stone Responds To The Latest Smear From The Washington Post In A Statement July, 16 2020

Roger Stone

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – I have made clear repeatedly that I would never bear false witness against President Trump. The media have disingenuously and shamelessly spun my comments regarding my refusal to do so to suit their own agenda. Howard Fineman’s reporting in particular is based solely on his own twisted version of my words. At no time did I imply that I knew of misconduct on the President’s part or that I remained silent regarding misconduct in return for an act of clemency. That is not true.

It was not a revelation that Mueller was trying to get to the President through other people. Dozens of witnesses have said so. In fact, during a March 14th, 2019 trip to D.C., A.U.S.A. Jeannie Rhee asked to see my counsel in the U.S. Attorney’s office where she informed them that the prosecutors wanted me to cooperate with the Mueller investigation by providing evidence that I communicated with the Russians to help the Trump campaign win the 2016 election. In return they would have provided me with unspecified leniency. I would not lie to fit their narrative. Thus, I refused to bear false witness against the President. I have said this repeatedly and it has been widely reported which is why I said the President is aware of it.

Mueller with full subpoena power examined all of my emails, text messages, and phone calls, as well as all of my records and found no evidence to support this claim by Mr. Fineman. If the case were otherwise, they would have charged me accordingly and the Mueller Report would have highlighted that. Even when unredacted, the Mueller Report does not make this claim against either the President or me.

Robert Mueller’s assertion that I was “communicated with Russian intelligence officers known to him” is also contrary to the facts, as he is well aware. Since my innocuous and innocent exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0, the full text of which I released publicly in 2017 took place AFTER the publication of all the Wikileaks disclosures and the content of the exchange prove no evidence of collusion or collaboration and the fact that Mueller’s intensive investigation turned up no evidence that I possessed or knew about the content or source of any of the material published by WikiLeaks prior to its release Mueller‘s statement in the Washington Post is a bitter-grapes smear. 


Stay connected with The Published Reporter® - like/follow us: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter - thank you!

In fact, Mueller’s assertion that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian asset is widely disputed and has never been proven in any court of law. Just because John Brennan says something is true, does not make it true. I was prohibited at trial from presenting expert testimony and forensic evidence that would have proved that the entire “Guccifer 2.0/ Russians hacked the DNC” narrative is false and that neither Mueller nor the intelligence agencies have any evidence beyond the now discredited Crowdstrike report to prove this assertion. In view of the fact that the Constitution guarantees me the right to “any reasonable defense”, one wonders why the government so adamantly opposed my right to disprove the underlying premise of their entire case and why the judge agreed with them. What is it they feared? 

Again, If Mueller had evidence that I was involved with Russian efforts to obtain and disseminate stolen data why didn’t he bring such an indictment. In fact Mueller justified my case being assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson based on the fact that he would “introduce evidence obtained in the Russian hacking case” at my trial but never produced any such evidence at trial. How many times can these discredited dirty cops recycle the same lies?

Comment via Facebook


Disclaimer: News articles on this site contain opinions of the author, and if opinion, may not necessarily reflect the views of the site itself or the views of the owners of The Published Reporter®. Any charges are accusations and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. For more information on our editorial policies please view our editorial policies and fact checking policies, in addition to our terms of service.