Important: This story is categorized as an opinion piece. This means it bypasses ordinary fact checking and is likely based entirely on the authors opinion. Please see disclosure in author bio below story.

Jan 6th Committee Continues To Traffic In Conspiracy Theories But Has Yet To Turn Up Any Evidence Or Proof I Engaged In Any Improper Activity

Roger Stone Renounces Violence Jan 5th: The Video the J6 Committee Will Not Show You
Roger Stone renouncing violence Jan 5th: The video the J6 committee did not show. Photo credit: Account: RealRogerStone / Rumble.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – Any claim or assertion that I knew about, in advance, participated in or condoned any act — by any person or group — at or anywhere near the United States Capitol or anywhere in the District of Columbia, United States, or Planet Earth — on January 6th, or any other date, that was either unlawful, illegal, or otherwise intended in any way to cause damage or disrupt any proceedings of Congress, or any other governmental body, is categorically false.

Any claim or assertion that I was involved at any time in any effort of any kind by any person or group to delay, hinder or otherwise obstruct the certification of presidential electors by the Congress, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, is also categorically false.

Nothing presented in the most recent (October 13, 2022) January 6th committee hearing contradicts any of this. What we did see was a continuation of the tactic of “guilt by association.” Just because I know someone or have met them does not constitute proof that I was aware of any impending criminal conspiracy. The committee provided no evidence to the contrary.

In one of the committee’s previous “hearings,” Cassidy Hutchinson, a disgruntled former employee of President Donald Trump (not retained in the post-presidency, despite seeking a position), claimed that Trump directed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to call both General Michael Flynn and me, purportedly to “find out what would happen on January 6th.” Hutchinson also claimed that Trump directed Meadows to make a similar call, in order to be briefed on a purported meeting held in the Willard Hotel in a supposed “War Room.” Hutchinson further testified that these alleged calls were, in fact, completed.


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.
 

These assertions are entirely false, as no such phone calls ever took place. Nor was I in or aware of any “War Room” in the Willard Hotel, as confirmed by three sources to the Washington Post. Nonetheless, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren repeated Hutchinson’s perjurious testimony again in the hearing.

The video shown by the January 6th committee yesterday (who leaked it first to CNN and MSNBC), also produced by the Danish filmmakers, which claimed that I said that Donald Trump should declare victory even if he “lost,” in fact, says that he should claim victory if the race for president was “up in the air” — the exact same strategic political advice James A. Baker III gave George W. Bush in 2000 when that race was in dispute.

This contradicts the January 6th committee claim that I advocated that Trump should claim victory regardless of the outcome of the race. My comments are constitutionally protected free speech as well as sound political and public relations strategy.

I will also prove that their video, which the committee showed, appears to show me advocating violence is a fabrication. How convenient that everyone in the video’s mouths are obscured with masks? How interesting that the audio matches exactly an audio released by CNN a week ago in which I cannot be seen at all. Because it is my intention to bring a $25 million defamation lawsuit against the Danish filmmakers Christoffer Guldbrandsen and Frederik Marbell, this will be proven in subsequent litigation.

Strangely, the January 6th committee failed to show the following video in which I addressed a large crowd at a legally permitted event in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 5th, where I specifically renounced violence and warned Trump supporters not to be baited.

The continuing insistence that I served as a liaison or go-between between the Trump White House, the Trump campaign and groups termed by the media to be “extremists” is without foundation. There are no encrypted messages, non-encrypted messages, e-mails, phone calls, or witnesses to the contrary. The committee produced none today – because there are none.

Despite this, Rep. Zoe Lofgren described Oath Keeper Joshua James as a “close associate” of mine during today’s hearing. The first time I ever met him was on January 5th, and the claims by the Danish filmmakers that he was “in my suite” at the Willard actually means he delivered a suitcase to my room and was in the room for less than one minute, something the committee could easily confirm using their subpoenaed footage.

Because I was unable to hire off-duty D.C. police officers to provide security for me, as I had done quite legally during my pretrial motions in D.C. and during my trial, I accepted a voluntary security detail from the Oath Keepers. During that time I witnessed and heard nothing that would preview any individual’s involvement in the illegal events of January 6th. If the committee has actual evidence to the contrary, they should produce it, but they have none and guilt by association is their obvious and transparent tactic.

Guldbrandsen has also told a Danish media outlet that my speech on the evening of January 5th, “heavily incited violence.” He was not there and did not film the speech. Here is the entire speech, as you can see, there is no incitement to violence, and all of my statements are consistent with my First Amendment right to question the results of the 2020 election. My views reflect my religiously-based apocalyptic view of the struggle in America today. This is not an incitement to violence as CNN has claimed.

Members of the January 6th committee are aware that any time a citizen invokes their Fifth Amendment rights in any legislative or judicial proceeding they are required to invoke their Fifth Amendment right to any-and-all questions lest the privilege is waived. The committee’s selective use video of me invoking my Fifth Amendment rights to specific questions is duplicitous and manipulative.

The January 6th committee continues to traffic in conspiracy theories but has yet to turn up any actual evidence or proof that I engaged in any improper activity in connection with January 6th, other than the exercise of my free speech rights which they now claim is illegal.

Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to corrections@publishedreporter.com and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)