President Donald Trump pardoned Roger Stone today along with several others. While there will be some who will object to it and call it political, I will take a moment to explain why I think it was right for Trump to pardon Stone.
He did not get a fair trial. In fact, it was one of the worst travesties in the history of federal criminal trials.
I wrote the following just prior to Stone’s pardon and thought it would be worth publishing in the event the pardon was a little slow in coming.
Even before the Gestapo-style FBI raid on his home in 2019, the Frank Report has reported in-depth about the effort by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to use essentially fabricated criminal charges against long-time Trump confidant, Roger Stone, in order to pressure Stone into testifying against Trump – which would have helped create a viable Article of Impeachment.
I am well aware that some readers don’t like Stone, but we are forced to follow facts based on our own investigative reporting and are not motivated by any ideological fervor.
Most likely you missed the most recent disclosures by the U.S. Department of Justice – which exposed the fact that Stone was the victim of a malicious political prosecution by Robert Mueller and his Ivy league hitmen. The release was carefully timed to ensure that it got almost no press coverage.
Despite a multi-year multimillion-dollar intensive investigation of Stone, Mueller’s gumshoes did not find the WikiLeaks connection or receipt and dissemination of emails that they kept insisting existed. At that point, rabid, former Hillary Clinton Lawyer, Arron Zelinsky, browbeat a young Trump campaign employee, in an attempt to get the man to wear a wire and seek a meeting with Stone in Miami.
As the world now knows, Stone was subjected to a Soviet-style show trial in which left-wing Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, prohibited Stone’s lawyers from making any powerful arguments, including denying them the right to offer evidence to disprove that the Russians hacked the DNC, the underlying premise of Stone’s indictment and which takes up the first 440 words of that document, written by Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s least ethical prosecutor.
Incredibly, Judge Berman Jackson also granted a motion from federal prosecutors prohibiting Stone from raising the misconduct of the Special Counsel’s office, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any Member of Congress in his defense.
It is not unreasonable to ask why the Government sought to bar evidence of misconduct on their part if there was no misconduct to hide. Berman Jackson’s ruling is patently unconstitutional. Under Kyle’s v Whitely, “Prosecutorial integrity is always at issue, never off the table.”
Even more surprising – and indicative of the absence of even the faintest pretense of a fair trial – was the fact that Stone’s jury forewoman, a Democrat activist and lawyer, Tomeka Hart, published both Twitter and Facebook posts attacking Stone, commenting on his case, as well as repeatedly attacking President Trump and his supporters.
Hart hid the posts behind a privacy setting during the jury selection and the trial – and deleted them immediately after the trial.
The makeup of the jury included no Republicans, no Trump supporters, no military veterans, no Catholics, no Black men.
To help pack the jury with people hostile or unsympathetic to Stone, Judge Berman Jackson ruled that political activism in the Democrat Party, support or contributions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, service in the Obama or Clinton administrations as a political appointee, or relationships with individuals in the current Justice Department in the FBI, could not be grounds for dismissing a prospective juror.
Get This Man to Prison and Die
Despite all current legal precedents, current law and the specific regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons regarding non-violent convicts and the risks of COVID-19 exposure, and without regard to Stone’s age, [then-67] and history of respiratory illness, Judge Jackson ordered Stone’s immediate incarceration last July, and for him to report to a Coronavirus-infested prison where BOP officials insisted there were no COVID-19 cases among the prison population, but the prison guards’ union exposed over 100 cases the BOP was concealing. Tucker Carlson said it was “a death sentence.”
On July 14th, only hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Jackson’s order to incarcerate Stone (with Bill Barr’s Justice Department taking no position when Jackson ruled that Stone go to prison, but supported his immediate incarceration when Stone appealed his prison surrender date), President Donald Trump commuted Stone’s sentence because Stone “did not receive a fair trial.”
Now, Mueller’s dirtiest cop, Andrew Weissmann, is demanding that the Biden Justice Department charge Stone, despite the fact that the Mueller Report written by Weismann has conceded that no evidence of a crime by Stone could be found. Former U.S. Solicitor of the Obama-administration, Neal Katyal, has called for Stone’s prosecution for destroying evidence when there is no existing evidence that Stone destroyed anything relevant to his case.
Much has transpired since the President commuted Roger Stone’s sentence. You certainly cannot rely on the news media to tell you how much we have learned about the prosecutorial misconduct and other irregularities in Stone’s trial in the District of Columbia.
Who Leaked the FBI Raid on Stone’s Home?
Many Americans remember the predawn raid on Roger Stone’s home in which 29 heavily-armed agents stormed his house. And many people are aware that CNN showed up 14 minutes before the FBI to video Stone’s arrest and the harassment of Stone’s wife, Nydia Stone.
We now believe we have a powerful lead on who is responsible for this illegal leak. Stone was arrested at 7:05 A.M. One hour earlier, at 6:05 A.M., CNN correspondent, Sarah Murray emailed Stone’s attorney, Grant Smith, a draft copy of Stone’s indictment. The document received had no timestamp or court markings on it. However, according to at least one source, its metadata tags show the initials of Andrew Weissmann!
The indictment document wasn’t sealed until 5:30 A.M. in Washington D.C. CNN’s claim that they got the document from the Special Counsel’s website was disproved by the fact that the Special Counsel did not post Stone’s indictment until it was unsealed. Leaking the government’s intention to issue an arrest or search warrant is a felony. CNN’s claims that their presence at Stone’s residence just prior to Stone’s arrest was based on a “journalistic hunch” and “a little luck on the timing,” is “bullshit.”
As President Donald Trump bellowed, “Who tipped CNN?”
This serious felony – the leaking of an impending search and arrest – needs to be investigated vigorously by law enforcement. If it is Weissman, even though he may be assumed to be above the law, and quite possibly is, an arrest should be made, despite his political connections.
Why the Investigation Into Stone Had Nothing to Do With Russia
We also learned through Rod Rosenstein’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mueller’s investigation into Stone did not begin until September 2017, two months after Mueller concluded that there was no Russian “collusion” with the Trump campaign.
Interestingly, Rosenstein seems to have lied to the Committee under oath when he said he did not approve the investigation into Stone’s affairs, as the document authorizing that investigation is signed by Rosenstein.
Strangely, Rosenstein has not been prosecuted for lying to Congress. Even though Rosenstein may be assumed to be above the law, a thorough investigation should be made to determine if he committed the same crime Stone was convicted of – lying to Congress. Then it can be explained how members of the deep state are more equal than others.
Bannon’s Contradictory Testimony
When Steve Bannon’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was declassified, we learned that his sworn testimony before the House Committee specifically contradicts his sworn testimony at Stone’s trial.
In fact, GW University’s Professor, Jonathan Turley, told the New York Post, “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry…. he has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance.”
It seems prosecutors must have actively suborned perjury. This may be easy to prove with an investigation since there is little doubt that prosecutors were familiar with Bannon’s House Committee testimony. Yet, they elicited from Bannon an entirely contradictory testimony at Stone’s trial. At a minimum, this is prosecutorial misconduct. It should warrant a criminal investigation.
Prosecutors Violate Roger Stone’s Brady Rights
Certainly, prosecutors had a legal obligation to inform Stone’s lawyers that Bannon was under federal investigation during the time he was testifying against Stone. Their failure to do so was a violation of Stone’s Brady Rights. Stone’s lawyers could have used this information to impeach Bannon on the stand.
Shocking – Buzzfeed Said Roger Stone Was “Vindicated”
At midnight on election day, November 3rd, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice released the last remaining unredacted sections of the Mueller report regarding Stone, admitting that the Special Counsel had no evidence whatsoever of collaboration or coordination between Stone and WikiLeaks, the Russians and the Trump Campaign.
While the Government’s chief witness, former left-wing radio talk show host and comic impressionist, Randy Credico, denied on the stand that he was Roger Stone’s source regarding the coming significance of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton, Credico confirmed in an interview with this writer in 2018, that he was, indeed, the “confirming source” of what little information Stone had that wasn’t already in the public domain.
Although Stone was charged with witness tampering because it is alleged that he threatened to steal Credico’s dog, this writer interviewed David Lugo, a filmmaker introduced to Stone by Credico. Lugo claims that Credico threatened in writing to “put a hole in your head” if Lugo dared contradict Credico’s fabricated testimony before the Grand Jury.
It begs the question: If Stone was charged, why wasn’t Credico also charged with witness tampering? Mueller’s “Dirty Cops” ignored what would be Credico’s more serious and life-threatening criminal behavior.
Was it because Credico was a witness against Stone?
While I personally believe both men, Stone and Credico, were merely joking – they are both given to a kind of deadpan humor and mimicking of tough guys, Stone only threatened to steal a dog, and knowing Stone’s kindness to animals, he would have taken very good care of the little animals, while Credico threatened to make Lugo’s brain entirely unusable.
Credico told this writer that he never once thought Stone was trying to tamper with him, or that Stone was even remotely serious about stealing his dog.
The prosecutors also concluded that even if they had found such evidence of Stone’s actions, it would have been perfectly legal under the First Amendment – which means that he could not have been prosecuted for them.
However, Judge Amy Berman Jackson withheld this information from Stone’s lawyers because it could destroy the legal premises for the bogus charges brought against him – while the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Wall Street Journal, and many others publicly accused Stone of collusion with WikiLeaks, which they claimed was the same as collusion with the Russians.
When the Mueller report proved that this was false, only BuzzFeed, the Washington Examiner and Zero-Hedge reported that Roger Stone had been “vindicated” as BuzzFeed reported it.
It is an article of faith among radical leftists that attorney General William Barr interfered with Roger Stone’s sentencing and pressured the four highly partisan prosecutors handling Stone’s case to “go easy on Trump’s friend of forty years.” Barr has denied this under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.
Fox accurately reported that the prosecutors in Stone’s case used several novel “enhancements” to recommend a 7-9-year sentence,” surprising senior officials at DOJ who had expected a sentencing recommendation more in line with federal sentencing guidelines.
Four prosecutors within the Justice Department sent a supplemental sentencing recommendation to Judge Jackson. While Barr’s DOJ never withdrew the 7-9-year recommendation, they also made a case for a lesser sentence, without the questionable enhancements cobbled onto Stone’s sentence by Mueller’s henchmen, but pointing out that Judge Berman Jackson had full discretion to sentence Stone with any term she decided on.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who made her disdain for Stone apparent in each phase of his trial, rejected the 7-9-year sentence recommendation; sentencing Stone to 40 months in prison. Now comes proof that the claim that the original Stone prosecutors were subjected to political pressure for leniency and sentencing has been exposed as a canard.
The Washington Post reported that three senior non-political career Department of Justice officials specifically deny the false claim by ex-Stone-Prosecutor, Aaron Zelinksy, in his sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee – that he had been subjected to political pressure regarding Stone’s sentence. If they are telling the truth, isn’t Zelinsky guilty of “Lying to Congress?”
Why Stone Dropped His Appeal
Stone only reluctantly dropped the appeal of his conviction.
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the corrupt indictment of General Michael Flynn, ruled that White House Legal Counsel Don McGahn did have to testify to Congress regarding his privileged conversations regarding the President, and ruled that Hillary Clinton did not have to testify about her illegal mail server, it became apparent to Stone that the D.C. Circuit Court had become so politicized that no Republican or Trump supporter could expect a fair decision.
Even if Stone had been able to obtain a new trial, it would have been presided over by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who not only showed extreme bias throughout the trial but willfully withheld exculpatory evidence from the redacted Mueller Report from Stone’s attorneys at trial.
A Pardon for Stone
While Stone has had no public comment regarding his prospects for a presidential pardon, he did say in his Parler feed that he was “Praying for a Pardon, so that I can put this entire horrific Witch-hunt behind me.”
I believe that anyone who objectively reviews the facts regarding Roger Stone’s takedown will conclude that he richly deserves the pardon he is praying for.