FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – After President Trump decided to use his extraordinary power of clemency to commute my sentence as an act of both mercy and justice for the contrived charges against me, the unhinged left began its counterattack. It is based entirely on falsehood.
Former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman was not the first one to try out the flawed argument that any act of clemency by President Trump in my case would be illegal and therefore grounds for impeachment. According to her, the president would allegedly be covering up his own crimes or crimes that he and I committed together.
Since then, Congressman Jerry Nadler, Congressman Adam Schiff, Congressman Eric Swallwell, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Hillary Clinton and now the Report of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have all repeated the same lie.
President Donald Trump in his written answers under oath to the Special Counsel essentially denied any discussion with me regarding the Wikileaks disclosures. I testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that I never discussed Wikileaks with Trump in 2016, early 2017 or anytime up to this very day. Both of us were telling the truth.
FREE DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION: GET ONLY 'FEATURED' STORIES BY EMAIL
Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox.
Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee report said, “[t]he Committee assessed that Trump spoke with Stone about WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.” Notice the report’s convenient use of the hedge word “assessed.” This particularly unpersuasive word choice is used by intelligence agencies when they seek to push some conclusion for which they have NO evidence or proof.
As I wrote at StoneColdTruth.com:
“The charges brought against me for false statements to that committee did NOT include my testimony refuting any claims that I had ever had such communications with Donald Trump. Further, the Mueller Report never alleged, or otherwise concluded, that the president was not truthful when he likewise said he recalled no such communications.”
“Aggressive as they were, even the Mueller prosecutors knew full well that the only support they could muster to substantiate this fabricated claim was uncorroborated testimony from Michael Cohen and Rick Gates, induced as part of their plea bargains, attempting to avoid prison. Even after seizing all of my communications and devices, and presumably surveilling those of others, perhaps even the president’s, not a single text, email, note or other document was found or produced to contradict the truth that both the President and I told about this question.”
“The Senate Intelligence Committee report also conveniently excludes Cohen’s contradictory testimony on this point. Cohen first said he overheard a call between candidate Trump and me in July of 2016 just before the Democrat National Convention, during which WikiLeaks dropped the first batch of DNC-related documents.”
“Cohen’s testimony claimed that candidate Trump put me on speaker phone after a secretary told him I was on the line. The secretary who routinely handled any calls I made to candidate Trump gave no support to Cohen’s claims – namely because Cohen’s version of events never happened. Cohen was never called as a witness in my trial, and for good reason – the claims of this admitted liar have ZERO corroboration.”
“Curiously, the only other testimony purporting that Donald Trump and I communicated about Wikileaks – from Rick Gates – was essentially an identical circumstance, as though the “overhearing a phone call” scenario was the only one that the Mueller gang and their cooperating plea-bargainers could plausibly fabricate. Rick Gates testified at my trial that he witnessed Trump take a cell phone call from me while riding with candidate Trump in an SUV from Trump Tower to LaGuardia Airport in August 2016.”
“Gates admitted he did not hear the actual call, claiming only that he knew it was a call from me because he purportedly saw my name pop up on Trump’s cell phone. The fact that Gates was seated in the back of the SUV while Trump rode in the front seat casts doubt on this claim, and Gates never explained how he could have so readily glimpsed anything on Trump’s phone before Trump picked up the call and put the phone up to his ear.”
“Further, I’ve had the same cell phone number for many years and it has always been held under my company, which is what pops up from caller ID whenever I call someone from it. Even if Gates somehow could see the screen, it would not have displayed my name.”
“Gates also said there were two Secret Service agents in the car at the time, but, conveniently for Gates and his fictional testimony, the government could not produce them. It couldn’t even produce a phone record to show such a call ever happened. Gates claimed that he knew the call pertained to Wikileaks because of something Trump said immediately after the call.”
“The bottom line is that Gates’ fictional overheard call between candidate Trump and me simply never happened. But Gates got what he needed in exchange for fabricating a conveniently “overheard call” (which no one else apparently overheard) — a mere 45-day sentence and a free pass from the Mueller gang on a million dollar tax evasion charge. Regardless, Gates’ tall tale, like Cohen’s, is uncorroborated – the result of an extremely desirable benefit for Gates: avoiding serious prison time.”
“These two fabricated, uncorroborated plea bargain-induced stories of supposed eavesdropping (without actually hearing anything) are regularly used to bolster the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE goes like this: “Roger Stone traded his silence regarding his knowledge of misconduct by the president in return for the president’s commutation of his sentence.”
This phony argument has now popped up in op-eds of platoons of fuzzy-headed left-wing law professors as well as the editorial pages of once great newspapers like the New York Times. It has been repeated along with the other big lie that Attorney General William Barr is violating the rule of law at the Justice Department by his action to dismiss the case against General Michael Flynn and the allegation that Barr interceded in the sentencing process in my case to give me “special treatment.”
Because there was a general mainstream media blackout of the coverage of the show trial I was subjected to in Washington, D.C., many people do not know what I was charged with. It is therefore important to know that my trial never produced any evidence that I possessed or knew about the content or source of any of the Wikileaks disclosures prior to their public release.
The other falsehood that the mainstream media manipulators got huge mileage from is my entire innocuous exchange on Twitter direct messages with the persona of Guccifer 2.0, who our intelligence agencies insist without providing any proof was a Russian intelligence asset.
Robert Mueller himself recycled the whopper in a op-ed in the Washington Post the day after the president commuted my sentence. “Roger Stone was communicating with Russian Intelligence Officers known to us” he wrote. His claim that my innocent and innocuous exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter DM, which I released entirely publicly in 2017, was proof of collusion between the GRU and the Trump campaign is disproved by the timing and content of the exchange which took place after the release of DNC documents by Wikileaks. The exchange itself proves no collaboration or collusion.
Mueller’s assertion that I claimed advance knowledge of the Wikileaks data release is meaningless; Julian Assange had already said in multiple interviews in the late Summer of 2016 that he had more material on Hillary Clinton and would release it.
Nonetheless, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler and the rest who insisted they had proof of Russian collusion will now scream about “the rule of law.” Where were these people when Attorney General Lorretta Lynch was meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac to fix Hillary Clinton’s illegal computer server problem? Where were they when Eric Holder was stonewalling Congressional subpoenas in the Fast and Furious investigation in which American law enforcement officers died? Where were they when Barack Obama was moving pallets of cash to Iranian power brokers that were never disclosed in the Iranian nuclear arms deal?
More importantly, where were they when officials within the Obama administration conspired to defraud the FISA court to spy on the Republican candidate and subsequently to launch an illegitimate investigation on the basis of fraudulent evidence in order to negate the results of the 2016 election? What in the world is taking Mr. Durham so long?
The problem for the Democrats is that these claims are no longer conjecture or just political record, but are undisputed facts on the basis of the declassification of the documents that they fought so long to hide. That has not stopped them from recycling this debunked narrative endlessly at their national convention last week.
The Democrats and their handmaidens in the fake news media are so efficient in their use of the big lie technique in their relentless recycling of falsehoods, I still get many emails and late night phone calls accusing me of being a Russian traitor. Sometimes crazed lunatics I encounter in public start yelling this epitaph at the top of their lungs, oblivious to the fact that members of my family were mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956. They need to give it a rest.