Why I Was Gagged by a Federal Judge and Why James Comey Should Be

Remember that Comey and I were both charged with essentially the exact same crime: lying under oath to Congress and obstruction of an official proceeding.

This week I was interviewed on Newsmax, Real America’s Voice, and by multiple print outlets on the disparity between the manner in which I was arrested and the fact that James Comey hasn’t even turned himself in yet, for which he has a deadline of October 9.

Remember that Comey and I were both charged with essentially the exact same crime: lying under oath to Congress and obstruction of an official proceeding. Critics point out that I was also charged with witness tampering, but the evidence of that – an email in which I threatened to take a government witness Randy Credico’s dog – was nonsense because Judge Amy Berman Jackson would not allow my attorneys to enter into evidence a series of emails in which I expressed concern that Credico was not feeding his dog, opting to spend his money on drugs instead. Damn clever, that Andrew Weissmann.

The over-the-top raid on my home at 6 o’clock in the morning, given my lack of any previous criminal record and the fact that I did not have a valid passport and did not own a firearm, was a raid that cost US taxpayers $1.1 million and was completely unnecessary in a first-time nonviolent crime. A defendant’s lawyer would normally be informed that his client was being indicted and would simply turn him in at a prearranged time and place.

The FBI claimed I had to be arrested in a stunning made-for-television stunt—29 heavily armed agents in full SWAT gear, brandishing fully automatic assault weapons, storming my home for the benefit of CNN. They justified this early-morning raid by saying I was a flight risk, a claim completely disproved when I was released after arraignment with no cash bond just five hours later. Their other excuse, that I might destroy evidence, was equally absurd: after literally tearing my home apart in a 13-hour search, they found nothing that was ever used against me at trial.

Although CNN won an award from the White House Correspondents’ Association for their “incisive investigative reporting,” which led them to stake out my home in the pre-dawn hours of the day of my arrest, in fact they got a tip. I was arrested at 6:06 AM, and at 6:22 Sara Murray of CNN texted my attorney Grant Smith a copy of the draft of my criminal indictment, which was sealed until 10:30 that morning by a DC Magistrate. Although the document had no court markings or timestamp on it, the metadata tags for the document revealed the name of the man who wrote it, and therefore the man who leaked it: Andrew Weissmann. The leak of the draft of grand jury materials or an arrest or search warrant prior to it being executed is a felony under 18 U.S.C.S. 401(c).

My case also differs greatly from James Comey in that Judge Amy Berman Jackson placed a broad gag order on me, claiming that my public comments defending myself could “taint the jury pool,” a claim for which she never produced any evidence. Why then did Judge Amy Berman Jackson leave the order in place, which even unconstitutionally prevented my wife and other members of my family from defending me in any public forum, in place after I was convicted, prior to my being sentenced, and even after I was sentenced while awaiting incarceration?

My critics have argued that I was gagged because I posted an image of Judge Amy Berman Jackson in one of my legal defense fund solicitations online that depicted a rifle crosshair over the judge’s face. This is entirely untrue. The sentencing recommendation also accused me of “threatening to kill a federal judge.” This was also false.

In fact, on February 18, 2019, I posted a graphic of Judge Amy Berman 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 who has never held a rifle with a scope in his or her life decided that the logo looked like a “crosshair on a rifle” and then accused me of “threatening to kill the judge.” This false narrative took off like a rocket in a fake media tempest.

Lost in the immediate fake news feeding frenzy is the fact that this same logo appears in the same place on other images of individuals “Corruption Central” had publicly criticized, including Mark Zuckerberg and Kamala Harris.

Even the affidavit I obtained from the graphic artist who had designed the microscopically tiny image in the upper-left-hand corner of a photo of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and who insisted it was based on a Celtic cross and was a logo of an ongoing “Corruption Central” series that had published many such images, would not quell the firestorm. By the time the fake news media conflagration was over, this story became “Roger Stone posted a picture of the judge with crosshairs over her face,” which is entirely untrue.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the US Marshals to conduct an investigation as to whether I had threatened to kill her, and they came back empty-handed. Nonetheless, the prosecutors in my case demanded additional jail time based on this claim in their sentencing memorandum, despite the fact that I was neither charged nor convicted of any such crime.

My Instagram post did, however, expose Mueller’s legal trickery to ensure that I was tried before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who had already viciously violated the constitutional rights of Paul Manafort by incarcerating him in solitary confinement long before he had ever been convicted of any crime.

Mueller’s thugs insisted that I had to be tried in front of Jackson because my case was “related” to the case they had filed against 17 Russians, who they claimed had hacked the DNC. In fact, prosecutors promised the judge that they would produce evidence gleaned against me from the search warrants in that case. Of course, they never did so because none actually existed. Mueller’s hit squad was allowed to judge-shop based on a lie.

Jackson, who dismissed the wrongful death case brought against Hillary Clinton by the families of the men killed in Benghazi, regularly attacked President Trump and me from the bench during my trial. Tucker Carlson rightly called her a “left-wing Democrat in a robe.” I also have a signed affidavit from a juror in my case who swore Jackson visited the jury room during deliberations when the jury was undecided on one count. I expect a House investigation of this impeachable offense soon.

In a 55-minute harangue at my sentencing, an unhinged Jackson said I “was convicted of covering up for Donald Trump,” which, of course, I was neither tried nor convicted of. With the recent declassifications of the Russian Collusion hoax documents by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, I now ask: “Covered up what?”

At the beginning of my trial, my defense attorneys asked for the entire unredacted copy of Robert Mueller’s final report, which, along with the CrowdStrike memo, Judge Jackson denied them. Jackson said she would review the entire report in her chambers and give my defense attorneys those portions relevant to my case. For some strange reason, she neglected to give my attorneys this section of the report on page 178.

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. 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 Jackson withheld this from my lawyers at trial. 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.

The truth is, I was gagged because after the FBI conceded in pretrial motions that they had never inspected the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee and had relied solely on the analysis of a third-party IT firm called CrowdStrike for the claim that the DNC had been the subject of an online hack by Russian intelligence. That is a lie.

When CrowdStrike’s Chairman Shaun Henry, who just happened to be a former deputy of Robert Mueller at the FBI, testified before the House Intelligence Committee, he was forced to admit that his report included no proof whatsoever that the Russians had hacked the DNC. Nonetheless, federal prosecutor Jonathan Kravis filed a rare sur-reply with the court, insisting the government did have other proof that the Russians hacked the DNC beyond the CrowdStrike report but could not release it to the court because it was classified. There is no such evidence. Kravis defrauded the court.

Former FBI Director James Comey, on the other hand, very clearly did threaten President Donald Trump only weeks ago, posting “86 45” with his beach shells in a photo he uploaded to Instagram. Anyone who has ever watched a gangster movie or been to a casino knows what “86” means. So why isn’t there a gag order on James Comey?