Remember when Bill Barr Pressured Federal Prosecutors to “Go Easy” on Roger Stone?

In reality, it was nothing more than a politically motivated lie peddled by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Adam Schiff.

You may recall that after I was legally lynched in a Soviet-style show trial in Washington D.C. - before a partisan and hateful judge, a corrupt jury forewoman, and a rigged jury - a controversy arose in which the four prosecutors in my case, repeatedly described as "line" prosecutors (all of whom had served in appointed legal capacities for Hillary Clinton), claimed that they had been pressured by senior Department of Justice officials, for political reasons, to “go easy” with my sentencing recommendation—which these prosecutors had recommended be a seven to nine year prison sentence for process crimes.

The media told us that all four prosecutors resigned in protest and my case was then assigned to JP Cooney, a top public corruption prosecutor at DOJ.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Adam Schiff all demanded an inspector general investigation into whether or not Attorney General Bill Barr and people working for him had subjected the so-called "line" prosecutors.

Now, however, that investigation is over and their formal report revealed that it was a politically motivated lie and that at least one of the four prosecutors perjured himself under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.

The entire report which confirms all my assertions can be found here.

The Associated Press, The Washington Times, and The New York Times, among others, all accurately reported on this revelation.

Nobody, however, broke the real story down like Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist:

By Mollie Hemingway

July 26, 2024

J.P. Cooney cultivated a politically toxic environment, disseminated baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in unprofessional conduct, a report says.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr did not improperly pressure prosecutors to reduce sentencing recommendations for political activist Roger Stone, according to a new government watchdog report. The exoneration of Barr came more than four years after a deluge of media reports alleging wrongdoing.

However, J.P. Cooney, a Justice Department official now serving as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s top deputy, cultivated a politically toxic environment, disseminated baseless conspiracy theories about Trump and his political appointees, and engaged in unprofessional conduct as he oversaw the team making sentencing recommendations, according to the same report.

Cooney is mentioned (as the “Fraud and Public Corruption Section Chief”) a whopping 394 times in the 85-page report released from the Justice Department’s inspector general on July 24. Cooney supervised a team of four attorneys who prosecuted Stone for what the government successfully argued in front of a Washington, D.C., jury were lies and obstruction during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Mueller’s two-year, $32 million investigation was itself spun up by anti-Trump officials in the Justice Department after the Democrat National Committee and Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton bought and paid for an information operation falsely alleging the Trump campaign was in cahoots with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Two members of Cooney’s team also worked on the Mueller investigation.

The Fraud and Public Corruption (FPC) team sought an unprecedented sentence of seven to nine years in prison for Stone, dramatically beyond what others convicted of similar crimes faced.

When developing that sentencing goal, the team by its own admission thought the “closest analogue” to the Stone conviction was that of Scooter Libby, a target of a previous special counsel in a highly controversial prosecution. Libby’s proposed sentencing range was 30-37 months and he was sentenced to 30 months, which was derided as “excessive” by former President George W. Bush.

Yet the Cooney team larded up the Stone sentencing memo with every escalatory adjustment it could find, however disputable, to achieve a much harsher sentence and treat Stone differently than the Justice Department treats other defendants.

As soon as Cooney’s supervisors saw what he and his team had planned, “they all agreed that the sentencing recommendation was too high” and expressed grave concern about the situation. Interim U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea, who had started on the job just that week, said he “had never seen [perjury] cases produce a sentence that high, and that he was aware of many violent crimes that did not result in sentences ‘anywhere near’ the sentence the team was recommending for Stone,” according to the report. He noted that the escalatory adjustments were arguably made in error, in at least one case, and that the guidance was completely “out of whack” relative to other cases. Further, Stone was a “first-time offender, older than most offenders, and convicted of a nonviolent crime,” and “comparable cases” were sentenced around two to three years.

Cooney responded to the criticism of his extreme sentencing proposal by spreading an elaborate conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence that Trump, Barr, and Shea were being improperly political. Cooney admitted to investigators that “he had no information suggesting that anyone from Main Justice (i.e., DOJ leadership offices) was involved in the Stone sentencing at this time and no evidence pointing to improper motivations influencing these discussions when he spread the conspiracy theory with his underlings.

In phone calls and other conversations with his prosecution team, Cooney spread his evidence-free conspiracy theory that “Shea was acting out of fear of then President Trump and, more particularly, fear of the consequences of not seeking a lower sentence for an influential friend of then President Trump.” He continued his conspiracy theories in other conversations. “Prosecutor 1 said that when he asked [Cooney] what was going on, [Cooney] replied that ‘this is coming from Main Justice. Tim Shea is getting pressure from Main Justice about the Stone sentencing recommendation, and Tim Shea is terrified of the President,’” according to the report. Cooney acknowledged he had no evidence to support these statements.

Another prosecutor said Cooney told him that “Shea did not care about Stone or the Stone case, but that Shea was ‘afraid of the President’ and that this fear was driving Shea’s actions,” according to the report. That same prosecutor said Cooney said multiple times that “Shea was afraid of the President and said it ‘with substantial conviction.’” Cooney later acknowledged he had no evidence to support his false claim.

At the same time, reporters began calling the Department of Justice to ask about the sentencing guideline dispute. That meant that at least one person within the department was getting information to reporters at left-wing media outlets to bully Trump appointees to acquiesce to their demands. Partisan bureaucrats had commonly used that tactic throughout the Trump presidency. While strict guidelines opposed unauthorized disclosures to the press, DOJ and FBI officials rarely bothered to investigate such leaks, much less hold employees accountable for them. In many cases, they were the worst offenders. For example, former FBI Director James Comey leaked to the media by disclosing information to an attorney who then passed the information on to The New York Times. The investigative report on the sentencing memos discusses how various DOJ employees denied leaking to the media while also noting they spoke about the sentencing controversy with other attorneys.

Unsurprisingly, the sentencing dispute became a major news story, with the perspective of Cooney’s team adopted by the recipients of the leaks. After the Justice Department issued a second sentencing guideline memo, the four prosecutors all removed themselves from the case and were lavished with praise by left-wing media outlets. Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky went on to testify in front of Congress about the situation. His claims that the sentencing dispute was guided by politics were untrue, but investigators blamed Cooney for spreading the falsehoods.

The second sentencing memo did not call for a specific jail time but left it to the judge’s discretion. Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed with the second sentencing memo and ordered Stone to serve 40 months in prison, many years fewer than Cooney’s team had aimed for. Trump commuted Stone’s sentence before he was taken into custody.

In its report, the Justice Department IG said that Cooney’s “speculative comments in meetings with the trial team about the political motivations” of Trump officials “in connection with their handling of the Stone sentencing contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust” that “unnecessarily further complicated an important decision in the case.” It further determined that his baseless comments to the trial team formed a substantial basis for Zelinsky’s explosive but wrong testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on June 24, 2020.

Cooney’s Checkered DOJ Record

Cooney’s track record at DOJ includes many other controversial political actions.

For example, one of the primary instigators of the Russia-collusion hoax was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN contributor. In April 2018, federal investigators issued a criminal referral for just some of the criminal leaks and lies he had engaged in while at the FBI. After sitting on a criminal referral for nearly two years, Cooney announced on Feb. 14, days after the Stone sentencing memo situation, that he had decided to let McCabe get away with the lies and the leaks.

Those who aren’t political allies of Cooney’s receive different treatment. Cooney prosecuted Steve Bannon in 2022 for a contempt of Congress charge related to him not complying with a subpoena from the controversial Jan. 6 Committee comprised exclusively of members hand-selected by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Bannon, who hosts the popular alternate media program “War Room,” is currently serving his four-month prison sentence. Civil libertarians are concerned about the Biden administration’s imprisonment of powerful media voices during the election season.

Incidentally, Attorney General Merrick Garland was found in contempt of Congress earlier this year for failing to comply with a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee, which unlike the Jan. 6 Committee is a real committee with members appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, but the Department of Justice has not charged him.

Thwarting Election Integrity

After the extremely controversial 2020 election, Attorney General Barr issued a memorandum allowing the Department of Justice to investigate election

irregularities if they were serious and substantiated. “While it is imperative that credible allegations be addressed in a timely and effective manner, it is equally imperative that Department personnel exercise appropriate caution and maintain the Department’s absolute commitment to fairness, neutrality and non-partisanship,” Barr wrote.

While many Americans would hope the Justice Department would investigate election irregularities in a timely fashion, particularly in an election as unprecedented as 2020, Democrat activists were livid. In response, Cooney cooked up a letter of outrage that quickly leaked to the media and helped shut down any meaningful investigations into the election. When The New York Times wrote about the letter, it was clear that Trump officials had already figured out Cooney’s mode of operating.

“On Thursday, [Cooney] said in an email sent to Mr. Barr via Richard P. Donoghue, an official in the deputy attorney general’s office, that the memo should be rescinded because it went against longstanding practices, according to two people with knowledge of the email,” The New York Times wrote. “In response, Mr. Donoghue told Mr. Cooney that he would pass on his complaint but that if it leaked to reporters, he would note that as well. Given that the email was born out of a concern for integrity, Mr. Donoghue said in his reply that he would assure officials ‘that I have a high degree of confidence that it will not be improperly leaked to the media.’”

Somehow the letter simultaneously made it to Cooney’s political allies at left-wing media outlets.

Rabid Pursuit of Trump

Weeks after President Joe Biden was inaugurated, Cooney was still stinging over not being able to put Stone in prison for nearly 10 years. He cooked up a plan, which appeared in The Washington Post and New York Times, to once again go after Roger Stone and other Trump associates in a new Jan. 6-related investigation.

His supervisors noted, “Cooney did not provide evidence that Stone had likely committed a crime — the standard they considered appropriate for looking at a political figure.” Further, his investigative plans were “treading on First Amendment-protected activities.” Nevertheless, he continued pursuing various plans to target Trump affiliates, and the U.S. attorney’s office began pursuing investigations along the lines of what Cooney had proposed, according to reporting.

President Biden and corporate media continued to pressure the Department of Justice and Garland to go after former President Donald Trump, who was widely expected to become Biden’s 2024 opponent. The famously conflict-averse Garland finally relented and put together a special counsel team heavily focused on Cooney and his extreme theories.

Democrat activists have cheered the special counsel for its aggressive actions against Trump, including a shocking raid on his Mar-a-Lago home, exhaustive investigations into communications and finances of Trump and many of his associates, and relentless pushes for courts to rush judgments ahead of the November elections.

Cooney and Smith’s approach has been less successful outside Democrat conversations. “It’s almost hard to believe how comprehensively the hubris and zealotry of anti-Donald Trump lawfare have blown up in their practitioners’ faces,” wrote The Washington Post’s Jason Willick after one major defeat. “Not only did the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling in Trump v. United States create new and enduring presidential immunities against criminal prosecution, but it also eviscerated the fiction of an ‘independent’ Justice Department and even inadvertently threw the validity of Trump’s New York hush money conviction into question.”

Left-wing media outlets such as Talking Points Memo have praised Cooney, noting that he was a partisan activist in college. Cooney, who was president of the College Democrats at Notre Dame University, wrote a column in the school newspaper that regularly praised President Bill Clinton and criticized Independent Counsel Ken Starr and his investigation of Clinton. Cooney once wrote of Starr as a “partisan political hit-man” for investigating Clinton and complained about the $30 million price tag of the investigation. He lamented the country’s “insatiable craving for controversy and scandal” regarding Clinton and worried it would destroy the country.

Yes—Mollie Hemingway nailed it.

The claim by the one prosecutor, Aaron Zelinksy, who decided to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee of being pressured by “higher-ups," was false. In other words, Zelinsky perjured himself.

What's strange about The Washington Post's story is that the inspector general's final report specifically said that Attorney General Bill Barr and other senior officials at DOJ declined to be interviewed—but evidently they talked to The Washington Post rather than the inspector general because The Washington Post, of all outlets, had the real story here much earlier on September 25th, 2020:

By Matt Zapotosky and Spencer S. Hsu

September 25, 2020

Three career supervisors at the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. have disputed the sworn congressional testimony given by a former prosecutor on Robert S. Mueller III’s team, telling Justice Department officials they believe he mischaracterized communications with them about undue political pressure in the criminal case against President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, according to people familiar with the matter.

The prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that he felt politics influenced the prison sentence that was recommended for Stone, who was convicted of lying to lawmakers investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. After Zelinsky and other career prosecutors recommended that Stone face seven to nine years in prison, and Trump angrily tweeted about the case, Attorney General William P. Barr intervened and had the Justice Department propose a lighter punishment.

Barr’s move drew widespread criticism and prompted all four career prosecutors to quit the case. Zelinksy’s allegation that the action was motivated by politics amplified the controversy, though some of his supervisors soon privately reported that they felt he had not accurately described what they conveyed, said the people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations.

The Justice Department inspector general’s office is now reviewing the matter, and has contacted at least one of the prosecutors assigned to the case.

Robert Litt, a lawyer for Zelinsky, said in an email, “He stands by his testimony and the Mueller report.”

Although the extent of the dispute is unknown, the supervisors’ account is notable because Zelinsky conceded to lawmakers that he did not discuss the Stone case directly with Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen or then-acting U.S. attorney Tim Shea. Rather, he said, it was his supervisors who explained why the department was “treating Roger Stone differently from everyone else.”

“And what I heard repeatedly was that this leniency was happening because of Stone’s relationship to the president; that the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice, and that his instructions to us were based on political considerations,” Zelinsky testified.

“And I was told that the acting U.S. attorney was giving Stone a break because he was afraid of the president.”

Pressed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a close ally of the president, to identify which supervisors he had spoken with, Zelinsky specifically mentioned fraud chief J.P. Cooney, saying he was the person who said that Shea was “afraid of the president” and that the motivation for altering the career prosecutors’ recommendation was political.

Zelinsky testified that the U.S. attorney’s first assistant, whom he later identified as Alessio Evangelista, and criminal chief, whom he did not identify, were also “involved in these discussions to my knowledge,” and it was his “understanding” that one or more of them had talked to Barr, Rosen or Shea. Zelinsky later clarified, though, that he “did not have any conversations with Mr. Evangelista following the filing of our memo” recommending Stone’s prison sentence.

Cooney referred questions to the U.S. attorney’s press office in Washington, which declined to comment. Evangelista did not return messages.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, confirmed earlier this month that the Justice Department’s inspector general had launched a review of how officials handled Stone’s case, though it was unclear what, precisely, prompted that inquiry and whether its focus was political pressure surrounding sentencing recommendation, Zelinsky’s testimony or other matters.

“We welcome the review,” Kupec said.

A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to comment.

Shea, who is now the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, declined to comment through a spokeswoman.

Stone’s case was cultivated by Mueller’s team as part of its two-year investigation of Russia’s election interference and whether any of Trump’s associates had conspired in that effort. It was transferred to the U.S. attorney in D.C. when the special counsel’s office was shuttered last year.

After Barr’s intervention, Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and those on the House Judiciary Committee, had called on the Justice Department inspector general to probe what they viewed as inappropriate political influence in a case involving a friend of the president. When the Justice Department signaled it planned to override career prosecutors’ recommendation for Stone’s sentence, all four assigned to the matter — Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed, Michael Marando and Zelinsky — quit the case, with Kravis leaving government entirely.

Litt declined to say if Zelinsky, who returned to his position with the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland, had been approached by the inspector general Steven M. Witzel, a lawyer for Marando, confirmed Marando had been approached by the inspector general’s office but declined to comment further. Marando left the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for a job at Facebook over the summer. Kravis declined to comment. Jed, who still works for the department, did not return a message seeking comment.

A federal judge ultimately sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison, though Trump later commuted In an email, Stone said he would file formal complaints with the Justice Department against the four prosecutors who secured his conviction. Barr has defended his intervention in the matter and asserted it was unconnected to Trump’s tweet. Like Zelinsky, Kravis has criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the case, asserting that career prosecutors were undercut to help protect a friend of the president.

“Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections,” Kravis wrote in a May Washington Post column. “When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.”

When the DOJ inspector general's report was released last week, The New York Times got it:

By Glenn Thrush

July 24, 2024

The Justice Department’s in-house watchdog found no evidence of political interference in the reduction of a prison sentence proposed for the longtime Trump ally Roger Stone in 2020, attributing the stunning reversal to “ineffectual” leadership, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The report concluded a four-year investigation into the decision by Attorney General William P. Barr in February 2020 to reduce Mr. Stone’s proposed sentence to about three years, after initially recommending seven to nine. The episode incited accusations of political interference and prompted four prosecutors in the case to resign.

The decision to seek a lighter sentence was announced after President Donald J. Trump sharply criticized the harsher sentence initially proposed by career prosecutors after Mr. Stone was convicted in 2019 for lying to Congress during its investigation into Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia. He denounced the sentencing recommendation as a “miscarriage of justice.”

But the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, concluded that Mr. Barr had argued that the more stringent sentence was unreasonably harsh before Mr. Trump expressed those sentiments. Mr. Barr was blindsided by a subordinate who had led him to believe the department would request a lesser prison term, Mr. Horowitz wrote.

“Barr had articulated his position about the sentencing recommendation both before and shortly after the first sentencing memorandum was filed, and before the president’s tweets,” Mr. Horowitz wrote in the 85-page report.

Mr. Stone never served any time; Mr. Trump commuted his sentence before leaving office. On December 23, 2020 President Trump issued Stone a full and unconditional pardon...

The New York Times wrote a balanced story, but they missed the real point. These vicious prosecutors had used multiple novel rationales for their "enhanced sentence" of seven to nine years, when the actual term for the crime for which I was convicted was between three to four years.

The prosecutors larded up their recommendations for additional jail time based on my involvement in "foreign interference in a U.S. election," as well as falsely claiming that I had threatened to kill a federal judge. I had, of course, not been charged nor convicted of either crime, yet prosecutors argued that I should serve a longer prison sentence for these offenses.

The manipulative sleight of hand used to put together additional prison time for me were based on charges I had neither been charged nor convicted of. For example, Mueller dirty cop, Zelinsky, and the DOJ Obama hold-overs prosecuting my case said the publication of my book The Myth of Russian Collusion, which was critical of the Mueller investigation, violated the constitutionally questionable gag order put on me by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on February 12, 2019… except the official publication date of my book was February 9, 2016.

The Gang of Four also sought to increase my sentence for “threatening a federal judge” based on a media frenzy where the facts got lost in a feeding frenzy of fake news. I  posted a graphic of Judge Jackson on my Instagram feed that had in the upper left corner the logo of the organization that created it, Corruption Central. Someone at BuzzFeed decided the logo looked like a “crosshair” on a rifle and accused me of threatening to kill the judge. This same logo appears in the same place on other images of individuals that Corruption Central had publicly criticized, including Mark Zuckerberg and Kalama Harris.

I even obtained a sworn affidavit from the graphic artist who designed the logo, who assured me that his design was based on a "Celtic Cross." When I said this under oath in the courtroom, the judge went out of her mind, insisting that the offending image was indeed a rifle crosshair.

By the time the fake news media conflagration was over, the story became “Roger Stone posted a picture of Judge Amy Berman Jackson with a cross-hairs over her face.” Upon being summoned to Washington to explain this matter on the stand, under withering and accusatory cross-examination by both the judge and Assistant US Attorney Jonathan Kravis, I said the following: “I apologize to the Court for posting an image that was open to misinterpretation. It was not my intention to threaten anyone.” The judge's response was to say that she didn't believe me. This is evidence of her bias before the trial even began.

All of this means that Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky lied under oath in his Zoom testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

One day before Aaron Zelinsky, the number two prosecutor in my case, was set to testify before a congressional committee, he leaked his planned testimony to news outlets and it’s chock-full of hysterical hearsay, however, provided no actual facts or evidence to support the assertion that I was given “special treatment” or that the prosecutors were pressured by either acting DC US Attorney Timothy Shea or US Attorney General Bill Barr.

“What I heard — repeatedly — was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the president,” the prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, said in a written opening statement submitted on Tuesday to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of Wednesday’s hearing. A copy was obtained by The New York Times.

As my case came to the sentencing phase, its underhanded prosecutors reportedly lied to senior DOJ officials and “browbeat” the newly-appointed US Attorney for D.C. in order to file a sentencing memorandum recommending that I receive seven to nine years incarceration as a non-violent first-time offender on charges of non-violent process crimes. The recently released inspector general's report proves this.

The draconian punishment recommendation was a radical departure from standard DOJ sentencing recommendation practices and immediately sparked public outrage. In fact, federal guidelines would have indicated an eighteen-month sentence for the 67-year-old veteran operative Republican strategist, who first urged Donald Trump to seek the presidency as early as 1988. The actual career prosecutors who took over the my case won a 40-month sentence. Where was the lenience Zelinsky alleges?

Zelinsky’s drunk-with-power conduct throughout my case was pompous, arrogant, and abusive. This reporter has confirmed accounts of Zelinsky bullying witnesses and threatening their lawyers, among the nineteen of my associates dragged before the Grand Jury.

“I am the Government,” Zelinsky bellowed during my friend Michael Caputo’s trip to the interrogation room. None of the Stone associates were charged or called as witnesses. After finding no evidence of “Russian collusion" against me, Zelinsky tried to pressure a young filedman from Trump's 2016 campaign to come visit me and wear a wire to trap me in some kind of incriminating statement. What an asshole.

Zelinsky, who aided and abetted his fellow prosecutors in hiding exculpatory evidence and ignoring at least three exculpatory witnesses who testified that former New York leftist radio host had divulged to them, one of them in writing, that Randy Credico told him he was indeed the source of my simple knowledge that the WikiLeaks disclosures on Hillary Clinton were coming. WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, announced in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper that he had “political kryptonite” and would that it be released in October. Credico’s prediction to me turned out to be correct on both counts.

Zelinsky and the his fellow Trump-hating partisans also chose to ignore thirty pages of text messages that Credico failed to turn over to the Mueller team, but that Stone’s lawyers gave to the prosecutors voluntarily when the discovered the exculpatory texts were not among the three terabytes of evidence taken from Stone’s computer, laptop and cell phone. The texts prove that Credico was indeed the source of Stone’s tweets saying the material to be released by WikiLeaks was explosive. The Daily Caller had the story.

So, federal prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, said I was “treated differently” in both his public comments and his voluntary testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

He was absolutely right. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Rosenstein and even Mueller himself all lied to Congress about material things and none were prosecuted. I made misstatements during my voluntary testimony that were immaterial, and hid no underlying crime, thus they were made without intent or motive. I was charged and convicted in a totally rigged DC trial with a biased judge and a corrupt Jury forewoman. I definitely got special treatment.”

Incredibly, after BuzzFeed won a lawsuit against the Department of Justice was the DOJ required to release the fully un-redacted final report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On November 3rd, 2020 - the busiest news day of the year - at precisely midnight eastern time, the Department of Justice released the long-hidden, long-redacted sections of their final report regarding Roger Stone. Even Muller could not sugarcoat the fact that he had found "no factual evidence" of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or, for that matter, any other crime on my part.

Incredibly, Muller admitted in his final report that he had found no evidence of my collaborating or receiving data from WikiLeaks and that even if he had found such evidence, those activities would not have constituted a crime under the First Amendment.

The Washington Examiner was among the few to recognize the bombshell admission contained in Muller's final report. They had sought to label me a traitor my country while leaking incendiary and false narratives to their bloodthirsty allies in the mainstream media.

It was all a lie, as I wrote at The Gateway Pundit:

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.

My prosecution was a travesty. One witness in my case argued that the subpoena sent to him was illegal because Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional in that there is no section of law which authorizes such Special Counsel. His appointment was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate and the funds for his investigation were neither budgeted nor authorized by the Congress. Judge Berman Jackson rejected this argument, as did the D.C. District Appeals Court.

While all of the MSNBC talking heads and the army of former federal prosecutors now posing as “legal analysts,” using their credentials for credibility, yet acting as if they are not vicious, biased partisans, insist that this is a “fringe argument” and that Cannon’s decision is somehow outrageous.

In fact, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meece and two respected college law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed an authoritative amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as Judge Cannon’s court, making the case against the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment.

Judge Aileen Cannon of the 11^th Circuit which includes Florida, recently ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith was unconstitutional, and his indictments thus flawed based on the same argument rejected in the D.C. District Appeals Court. A decision in one district does not bind the court in another district.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has appealed Judge Cannon’s ruling to the 11^th Circuit, and, regardless of how that court rules, the case will ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

If they find for Cannon, it means Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional and his indictments both in Florida and D.C. would be vacated. If the Supreme Court rules that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, then so is Mueller’s—in which case all of the convictions that he won would have to be vacated.

---

Stone Cold Truth is your home for the most controversial and groundbreaking content from legendary political operative and cultural icon Roger Stone. Your subscription not only gives you first access to this information, but helps keep Stone Cold Truth alive.

Already subscribed and want to support Stone Cold Truth further, while getting more eyes on this important information? You can gift a subscription to a friend at the button below!