Home » Schiff Said He’s Seen Evidence of Collusion In Election, Has Produced None

Schiff Said He’s Seen Evidence of Collusion In Election, Has Produced None

by Domain Admin
Stone Cold Truth Roger Stone

FOX NEWS: Rep. Adam Schiff questions the credibility of Roger Stone’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee; Stone responds to the congressman on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

“The real issue here, Laura, is very clear. Mr. Schiff has said that he has seen, quote, significant evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 election. He has produced none, zero. Of course, he would like to change the subject. My testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was entirely truthful,” Stone said Friday night.

Transcript, via FOX News:

INGRAHAM: Tonight Congressman Adam Schiff is accusing former presidential advisor Roger Stone of lying. Schiff is the ranking Dem of the House Intel Committee and a constant presence, you always see him cable news, not this show, however. He claims that Stone’s testimony to the committee last September conflicted with the established facts. Here to respond is Roger Stone, author of the new book ‘I have it in my Living Room Stone’s Rules’ and it’s hilarious, I love it. Roger, you’re apparently a liar says Adam Schiff, I know you’re in your crying towel all day and night, very upset about it but react to what he said.

ROGER STONE, POLITICAL ANALYST: I hate to say this Laura, but it’s just more bullshit from the Congressman of California. It’s even hard to know what he’s talking about. If he’s referring to the Twitter direct messages which were leaked to the Atlantic that prove that I had no collaboration with Wiki Leaks, I turned those over to the House Intelligence Committee last September. If he’s referring to the emails that were cited by the Wall Street Journal, that proved that I had no direct contact or source and was using back channel, why those fell outside the precisely worded scope of the Intelligence Committee’s request. A scope co-signed by Mr Schiff himself. The real issue here Laura is very clear, Mr Schiff has said that he has seen “significant evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 election”. He’s produced none, zero. Of course he’d like to change the subject. My testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was entirely truthful.

INGRAHAM: This is what he said, he said, “Certainly the testimony of Don Jr, Erik Prince, Roger Stone and others is inconsistent with the public reports of meetings, conversations, and other facts that have now been established and if so, those public reports are accurate ten clearly they were not telling the truth”. Don’t you love how he worded it? That’s like Clintonian wording, if the public reports are accurate. Yeah well, again, I think they now, Roger, know that there is no there, there. They tried to tap it into Papadopoulos, that poor hapless figure, that old Carter Page, now he’s seen his fortunes go down the tubes because of all this. He’s fighting in court, they have these convictions of tertiary figures, except for the deal with Manafort, we’ll see where that goes and his associate. But I think they are coming up empty and so they have to keep it in the press somehow, they have to keep going somehow will these little sparks of supposed interest. I don’t really think it works.

STONE: Well you may remember Laura, I wanted to testify in public, in a public hearing so everybody could see it. Now I’ve been asked to testify for the Intelligence Committee on the Senate side. I respectfully requested that be in public. Let the TV cameras roll.

INGRAHAM: You just want to sell your book Roger, come on, I’m kidding, I’m just teasing you. Well I agree, what is possibly going to be involved? I think they know, they know that they’ve come up with goose eggs and they don’t want to be humiliated. These people, you can’t get between them and camera, so if they don’t want it to be on camera, it’s not because it’s classified information. By the way, Oleg Deripaska apparently also wanted to testify. He said he’d testify, he didn’t claim he wanted immunity, he wanted to do it in public. The billionaire who they tried to get roped into this collusion thing. He said, it’s ridiculous and they wouldn’t have him come testify. They haven’t brought that Russian lawyer in the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya. She said I’m happy to come, they won’t talk to her so if these are key figures like tis lawyer, why wouldn’t they bring the Russian lawyer in? It’s curious.

STONE: Well having come up empty handed with any evidence of Russian collusion, having come up empty handed with any hijinks regarding allegedly hacked emails with Wiki Leaks, now they want to concoct some new crime or I should say new offence in an attempt to get me to testify against the President. This is not only ridiculous, but it’s very expensive Laura. This threatens to bankrupt my family. I’ve had to set up the stonedefence.com because I can no longer bear these legal expenses.

INGRAHAM: Well that’s what they do though isn’t it? They turn the screws on people, they say the will ultimately destroy your family, in not so many words. And then they get these low level figures to say, “Stop, stop, I’ll tell you whatever you want and if I have to say I lied, I’ll say I lied”. And then they get 1,001 convictions and then a pleas and then it’s over. That’s how it works, that’s the game that’s always played and in this case there’s a political analyst involved. Roger, thank you so much.

STONE: Thank you dear.

You may also like

Leave a Comment