Footnote: The Day Before Roger Stone Received a Pre-Written Pardon, He Lied about the Ongoing Investigation into His Conspiracy with Russia

As I noted here, Roger Stone’s pardon appears to have been all packaged up, covering only the crimes for which he has already been found guilty, before Billy Barr left DOJ and the pardons were rolled out.

Which is why I’m intrigued that Roger Stone went on The Gateway Pundit to lie about the investigation into him just yesterday. In what appears to be an interview of himself, Stone makes several assertions. First, he includes me among those who — he claims — were “obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.”

It wasn’t just the nut jobs like Mother Jones ,the Daily Beast , Salon and nutty bloggers like Marcy Wheeler but allegedly responsible media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and MSNBC became obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.

I’m flattered Stone felt the need to include me in this esteemed list without, this time, threatening to sue me for reporting things that would later be confirmed in court documents. It’s a testament to how closely Stone has always read me.

Stone wrote this self-interview for a more specific purpose, however: To claim that the Mueller Report passages unsealed the day before the election concluded he had no ties to WikiLeaks.

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).

He says that this passage proves that:

“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).

[additional content that Stone doesn’t include]

“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.”

Unsurprisingly, Stone does not include the footnote modifying this passage which, as I noted at the time, made it clear there were still ongoing investigations, plural, into this question at the time Mueller closed up shop on March 22, 2019.

1279 Some of the factual uncertainties are the subject of ongoing investigations that have been referred by this Office to the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office.

That is, the passage said the exact opposite of what Stone said it did. It said that, presumably in part because Roger Stone’s aide Andrew Miller had stalled on his grand jury testimony for a year, the investigation into whether Stone could be charged in the CFAA conspiracy with Russia was not yet complete, not after two years of investigation.

And having lied about what the unsealed passage says, Stone then complains that Judge Amy Berman Jackson withheld it from his lawyers.

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.

ABJ withheld it, of course, because DOJ was still investigating, even as recently as April 2020 when DOJ unsealed warrants that made that clear. DOJ withheld that passage so Stone wouldn’t know that the witness tampering case into him was just one step in an ongoing investigation, one that remained focussed on whether Roger Stone conspired with Russia or — indeed — had even served as an Agent of Russia.

Stone goes on to complain that only BuzzFeed, along with right wing propaganda sites Washington Examiner (who launched the investigation into Stone in the first place) and Zero Hedge, misreported the significance of this detail.

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.

He didn’t mention me in this case, because I correctly reported that the Mueller language actually said the exact opposite of what Stone claims.

Hours before he received a pardon for lying to cover up his real go-between with WikiLeaks — which a good deal of evidence suggests was Guccifer 2.0 — Roger Stone did an interview of himself where he falsely claimed the Mueller Report had finished its investigation only to fall short of proving that he was conspiring with Russia.

That’s a crime, it should be noted, for which Stone was not pardoned.

27 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    He didn’t mention me in this case, because I correctly reported that the Mueller language actually said the exact opposite of what Stone claims.

    I’m picturing Dr. Marcy Wheeler listening as Roger Stone defends his dissertation before her, taking apart the shoddy scholarship laid before her. “Have you actually read the document you’ve cited, or are you just saying what you wish it said?”

    I think the last line of this post will be used on a regular basis between now and January 20th, and likely well beyond.

    • Raven Eye says:

      Perhaps a persistent footnote “666” could be applied indicating: “A crime for which [insert perp’s name here] was not pardoned.”

    • noromo says:

      I had a boss a long time ago who would say, “why do you pretend to think you know what you are talking about?”

  2. Ginevra diBenci says:

    Yeah, Roger. We’re all “obsessed” with you, from Dr. Wheeler to the Times. You’re showing your truest colors now; from the sloppy syntax to the rampant pronoia, you’re revealing the termites that were turning the foundation of the House of Stone to filigree all along. Get Me Roger Stone? For what? The only interest you’ve ever served was yours. Like finds like. You and DJT deserve each other.

  3. Anomalous Cowherd says:

    Ummm, I’m no geologist, so to me it’s unclear exactly what kind of stone Roger actually is. The ones that come to mind upon viewing this specimen are, in no particular order, schist, wacke, or coprolite. He’s definitely not gneiss, but maybe that’s a mineral anyway.

  4. graham firchlis says:

    “Judge me by my enemies.”

    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    September 1932

    Right and reasonable to take some small satisfaction in the enmity of those who routinely engage in execrable behavior. I know I do.

    Joyous Yule to all, and best wishes for a blessed New Year. May the Peace of Enlightenment embrace us, everyone.

    • Chris.EL says:

      in the spirit of the season, there’s a cute piece on The Atlantic website re: “Charlie Brown’s Inside Job — what gives the 1965 Peanuts special its staying power?”
      Santa Rosa, California gave us Charles Schulz’s Peanuts (cartoon strip) and Mark Felt (Watergate’s deep throat) —
      go figure —
      “…including the right of private citizens to initiate such complaints in some States…” —-

      Anyone have insight which states and what the outline of such a complaint may be?
      — an interesting avenue no?

      • ducktree says:

        Thanks for sharing that link. The hook at the end was delicious: Trump may want to seriously consider his golf schedule in foreign countries after January 20, 2021.

        • Chris.EL says:

          It’s possible I misconstrued the article’s reference to States; it may refer to overseas Countries (i.e. Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan) — I took it to mean a state of the U.S. ( whatta dumbo…) Nevermind — but yes Trump needs to watch where he goes looking for wayward golf balls — and who he tries to cheat at golf with!
          Did you hear Pence traveled privately to Vail for vacation? While much of America is broke, sick, quarantined and stuck at home??!!!

  5. joel fisher says:

    Everyone who has been paying attention knew this day would come, and yet, it’s still sickening. Hopefully, Mr. Stone will be answering some questions under oath very soon and, after Trump himself, seems the most prone to lying. Welcome to 2021, the year of unforgiving; have yourself a real good time.

  6. Chris.EL says:

    While reading some comments on popehat Twitter, this idea came to mind; how about this: in order for Trump to act as president of the United States, Trump has to take the oath.

    Trump makes a contract by swearing to the oath.

    If Trump fails to abide by the oath/contract, the relationship fails. Grounds for terminating the contract — how’s this for a creative solution?

    No contract, not president, no pardon attaches… Worth a shot?
    From popehat Twitter:
    “Paul Ryan
    Dec 23
    Replying to
    The constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Plenary pardon power in favor of a corrupt scheme allows President to be above the law, which is an absurd result in the American Constitutional scheme. Can’t read the pardon power in the circumstance as unlimited. It is an insane result.”

    Dec 23
    This is a good argument. But it’s an argument. There isn’t case law on the subject. Do you think a motivated SCOTUS could arrive at a different result?”

  7. Krisy Gosney says:

    I think it’s strange that Stone and others aren’t just satisfied with ‘getting away with it;’ they also desperately need to believe they are being perceived as innocent. Weird. And sad. Sad, little humans. Anyway, merry Christmas to the smartest people on the internet!!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s an essential part of the schtick, like a magician’s rabbit. Through it, they deny their criminality, while claiming to be just like their deprived, deluded, put upon base.

  8. Monica Jerbi says:

    My position continues to be that some European analysts were indicating Wikileaks was a Russian intelligence community front as early as 2014. I have heard as early as 2010, but I don’t know that to be true personally. My position also continues to be that George Papadopoulos had access to this information before 2016. I also note that the Wikipedia entry for Joel Zamel reads: “In 2015 Zamel’s Wikistrat spent a week running scenarios called the “Cyber Mercenaries project” on how a U.S. election interference campaign could be made by Russian cyber actors, which was later reported to Donald Trump Jr in 2016.” Certainly, the issue of Wikileaks being an RU IC front that could be tapped for campaign interference would have been part of that simulation among others. If both Papadopoulos and Trump Jr. were presumably aware of Wikileaks being an RU IC front that could be weaponized for election interference, it begs the question why all the Trump campaign activities described in Senate Intel Volume 5 of the Bipartisan Russia Report took place.

Comments are closed.