Did the Russians hack the DNC?
By Roger Stone
Understanding the possible implications of Russiagate Special Counsel John Durham’s recent indictment of prominent Democrat lawyer, and Perkins Coie LLP partner, Michael Sussman requires a refresher on one of the great Government/media exercises in mass hypnosis in American history.
Perkins Coie is, of course, the Seattle-based law firm through which Hillary Clinton did much of her illegal dirty work during the 2016 campaign. Sussman, a firm partner along with Mark Elias, was recently charged by Special Counsel John Durham for lying to the FBI in an effort to mislead the Federal investigators regarding alleged transactions between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. The allegations later proved to be false.
It now also appears that Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who served as Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisor during the 2016 campaign, also lied to FBI agents regarding the dirty trick which Sullivan, Sussman, and others essentially fabricated “communications” between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization.
When, may I ask, will 29-heavily armed FBI agents converge on Jake Sullivan’s home in the predawn hours, in order to take him into custody? Now that I think about it, perhaps the FBI will invite OAN to film this exclusive takedown like they allowed CNN to do when I was arrested. But don’t hold your breath.
The U.S. Justice Department, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, and their willing handmaidens in the fake news media insisted, as a pretext for their investigation of so-called “Russian collusion,” that the Democratic National Committee was the target of an online hack by Russian intelligence with the stolen e-mails being supplied to WikiLeaks for publication. The New York Times and The Washington Post both reported that “the intelligence agencies” had “a high level of confidence” that the alleged Russian hack of the DNC had gone down exactly the way the Democrats, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA claimed that it did. Only later would we learn that a minority of the applicable Federal agencies subscribed to this theory. It did matter- in the reporting by all major media- it was a fact.
Interestingly, this still unproven claim was the predicate for my own criminal indictment by Robert Mueller and his thugs, although the Judge in my case denied me a defense in which I could have disproved this premise through the introduction of forensic evidence and other expert testimony.
Both the Government (in my indictment) and the media insist that the hack of the DNC by “the Russians” was “orchestrated by Guccifer 2.0.” The Government can provide no evidence to support this theory either, but in fact, far more evidence exists which indicates that “Guccifer 2.0” is actually a creation of U.S. intelligence. It is indisputable that this “alleged” Romanian hacker was using software registered to an employee at the Democratic National Committee. If you buy into the Government’s bogus claim that “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC and gave stolen data to WikiLeaks, I suggest you read this, story in which I expose their narrative. The Daily Beast and American Greatness have also covered this story.
In fact, it’s far more likely that “Guccifer 2.0” is actually former CIA Director and Islamic convert, John Brennan, than a Russian intelligence cut-out. The fake news media would have a field day over an entirely innocuous DM (direct message) exchange that I had with “Guccifer 2.0” on Twitter. The fact this 24-word encounter took place months after WikiLeaks had already published the DNC material, and that the actual content of our exchange is benign, was irrelevant to the hysterical jackals who cover national politics for the corporate media. After my conviction, Robert Mueller (Andrew Weissmann) wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post which specifically said that I was tracked “communicating with Russian intelligence officer(s).” Mueller has no proof that “Guccifer 2.0” is in fact a Russian intelligence asset, the contact he cites was after the fact, innocuous in content, and fully reported. and the use of the plural demonstrates why Robert Mueller’s entire inquest was a fraud.
The theme of Mueller’s op-ed attack on me is that I am “a convicted felon and deserve to be.” In fact, the full and unconditional pardon granted to me by President Trump erases my bogus felony conviction.
My upcoming book, “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong: My Political Persecution & The Loss of the 2020 Election,” will outline Robert Mueller’s crimes in covering up the role of the Saudis in the 9/11 attack on America, his bungling of the Anthrax incident in 2008, his coverup of mob murders in Boston, and his treasonous schlepping of the Uranium samples to Russia for approval in the Uranium One scandal. I’m no convicted felon, but Robert Mueller is a recidivist criminal, and my upcoming book and the attendant advertising for it will set the American people straight on this criminal bipartisan cleanup man, who actively covered up crimes by the Bushes and the Obamas.
The FBI was finally forced to admit during the pre-trial motions before my trial, that they never inspected the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee and that they relied entirely on a report by Crowdstrike, a third-party partisan IT investigative firm hired by Michael Sussman (the very Democrat lawyer charged by Special Counsel John Durham last week). When the Government admitted in discovery that the FBI had never inspected the DNC computer servers, an IT firm closely tied to Hillary Clinton, the admission got broad media coverage.
The Government then filed an additional sur-reply in my case signed by Assistant US Attorney Jonathan Kravis claiming to have other sources of confirmation that the DNC had been hacked by the Russians, but declined to produce any proof of this claim. Mr. Kravis clearly defrauded the Court with his baseless assertion that there is additional proof beyond the Crowdstrike report that the DNC was hacked by the Russians. Because Mr. Kravis no longer works for the U.S. Justice Department, there is no appropriate forum to seek disciplinary action against this prosecutor, who has a long history of violating the civil liberties of his politically motivated prosecutorial targets.
The Government went to great lengths to ensure that the entire Crowdstrike report remained unquestioned both in my trial and in the media. Perkins Coie Partner Mark Elias appeared at pretrial motions in my case representing the DNC to argue to Judge Jackson that my lawyers not be given the Crowdstrike report. Let’s just say the Judge didn’t need much convincing. In the 55 minute tirade against me at sentencing, the Judge tongue-lashed me for having the audacity to question the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation ( now proven by declassified documents to be a politically motivated fraud) and said I had been convicted of “lying to cover up for Donald Trump” not what I was charged with or convicted of.
In fact, the Judge also granted a motion by the prosecution which prohibited me from raising the issue of corruption of my prosecution by the Special Counsel’s Office, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any member of Congress. Why would the prosecutors ask that evidence of their corruption be barred at trial if there was no corruption to expose?
The Judge’s ruling was unconstitutional under Kyles v. Whitley, which holds that the integrity of an investigation is always legitimate grounds for defense. This ruling, of course, prohibited me from calling the Government out on their bluff that they could prove that “the Russians” hacked the DNC.
After the FBI’s stunning admission that they had never inspected the DNC servers began to get traction in the media, it was not coincidental that the entire baseless claim that I had “threatened” the Judge in my case became a media feeding frenzy. It became essential to the Justice Department that they silence me, lest I undercut the entire legal premise of their bogus investigation based on an online hack that never took place.
As a result, the Judge used this rationale for a gag order she imposed upon me (and all the members of my family!) so that I could not question the central and false premise of Mueller’s entire investigation.
The prosecutors would cleverly later try to ensure that I serve additional jail time for “threatening the Judge” – a crime I was never charged or convicted of, and which I continue to deny based on the facts. Thankfully, President Donald Trump took note of this legal sleight of hand.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson specifically denied my defense attorney’s access to the Crowdstrike report, which to this day remains classified. Unfortunately, however, Federal documents declassified by Acting DNI Director Rick Granell revealed sworn testimony in which the CEO and Chief Counsel of Crowdstrike admitted that their report, in fact, did not contain proof that “the Russians” hacked the DNC.
Judge Jackson denied a motion by my attorneys to have the entire unredacted Mueller Report for use in my defense. Instead, Judge Jackson ruled that she would review the entire redacted Report and determine which sections my defense attorneys would be allowed to have. Incredibly, the Judge included a section that claimed that I told Trump and several campaign advisers in July 2016 that WikiLeaks would be releasing documents embarrassing to the Clinton campaign ( false) which had been widely reported Shockingly, Judge Jackson failed to give us the still-redacted sections of Mueller’s Report in which he admitted that he had found “no factual evidence” against me regarding Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration or the phishing and publication of John Podesta’s e-mails. This clever manipulation of Mueller’s final Report was not exposed until November 3rd, 2020 when the DOJ was forced by a Court order to release the sections of Mueller’s Report that would have been devastating to the prosecutors in my case.
“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.” Page 178 Special Counsel’s Report.
Incredibly, Mueller’s report concluded that even if he had found that I had collaborated with Wikileaks- which he did not- it would not have been a crime
“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.” Page 178- Special Counsel’s Report
Having no involvement or knowledge regarding WikiLeaks and the publications of the DNC’s e-mails of which Mueller admitted ” proof was lacking” clearly proves I had no motive to lie when testifying under oath to Congress. Exposé that they had found no evidence of my involvement with the Russians, Wikileaks, Assange, or Podesta’s emails would have undercut the entire premise of the Government’s highly contrived charges of “lying to Congress” against me. That is why the prosecutors- and the Judge withheld this from my defense attorneys at trial.
In fact, any misstatement I made under oath before the House Intelligence Committee was entirely immaterial. Nothing I said hid any underlying crime because there was no underlying crime to hide. President Trump was right – the whole thing was a hoax.
The revelation that the Crowdstrike claim was the sole basis for the still-unproven claim that the Russians hacked the DNC, is particularly problematic in view of the fact that Mueller successfully argued related to a case that Mueller brought against twelve intelligence officers – accusing them of conducting the hack for which the government has yet to produce any evidence other than the now-debunked Crowdstrike report.
In fact, Mueller’s prosecutors promised the judge that they would introduce evidence against me in my trial that was collected through a search warrant in the Russian hacking case, a case which has never gone to discovery and which will never go to trial, essentially concealing the entire fabricated case. This was a fraud upon the Court because no such evidence was introduced at my trial.
The parallel hoax used to justify the appointment of Robert Mueller and the opening of a Federal investigation into “Russian collusion,” The Steele Report has now also been thoroughly debunked as the partisan work of a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. There is no question that Mueller’s Chief operator Andrew Weissmann was well aware of the question and political province of the Steele Dossier from his days as General Counsel to the FBI, yet he promoted its use to justify Mueller’s witch-hunt.
Both the Crowdstrike Report and the Steele Report were utilized as the fabricated rationale for the use of the full legal authority of the United States Government and the extensive intelligence capabilities of our Intelligence Agencies for the strictly political purpose of removing a duly elected President. This, rather than Watergate, is the greatest single abuse of power in American history, abuse of power for which no one has yet been charged or punished. Perhaps the conviction of Mr. Sussman will be the beginning.