“You might as well know now that I intend to fight this outrageous attempt to silence me forever! If I wanted an easy way out, I could just have agreed to the offer by Mueller and his thugs to provide them with the false testimony they wanted to impeach the President and then prosecute him. I refused to lie under enormous legal and financial pressure.”
Background to the injustices within Roger Stone’s case
In continuation of my previous article regarding the Case Against Roger Stone, Roger Stone has undoubtedly become one of the most prominent victims in the fallout of the Mueller investigation into the Trump Administration. As of June 2020, the fate of Roger Stone hangs in the balance following his February 2020 sentencing to 40 months in federal prison for obstruction of justice, 18 months for witness tampering and a $20,000 fine. Stone has been ordered to report to federal prison by June 30th if nothing is done by President Trump to pardon or dismiss the charges. Despite the recently released evidence pointing to a clear case of bias by the jury forewoman, Tomeka Hart, whose history of anti-Trump and anti-Roger Stone Tweets became the center of controversy and cause for many taking to Stone’s defense. Having been a former Democratic congressional candidate, Hart’s liberal social media bias gave way to a clear conflict of interest in the jury pool, one that prompted Stone’s lawyers to file a motion for retrial. One of Tomeka’s controversial tweets were made on the same day of the predawn raid launched by FBI agents on January 25th, 2019, as they converged on Roger and Nydia Stone’s home in Fort Lauderdale. Suspicious enough, CNN happened to be the only network reporting in the area at the exact time of the raid, obviously tipped off by either someone in Robert Mueller’s untrustworthy team or a corrupt FBI informant. To add insult to injury, CNN was recently awarded by the White House Correspondents’ Association as a winner of their 2020 journalism award for filming the raid; despite the shady nature of their presence and the totally unwarranted basis for the FBI’s actions—using 29 FBI agents clad in riot gear when they knew Stone would have voluntarily submitted to arrest, but CNN lusted for that Gestapo camera op.
On January 30th, Hart retweeted a tweet from CNN commentator Bakari Sellers criticizing Republicans who were unhappy about Stone's unjust arrest a few days prior. This brought to the attention of the court by one of Stone’s lawyers, Stephen Ginsberg, who also cited one of Hart’s tweets of an NPR article regarding Stone’s indictment, where she seemed to celebrate the prospect of Stone being locked up in contrast to supporters of President Trump calling for Hillary Clinton to be “locked up”; stating in the post, “'Oh, there should be jail,' but them getting arrested”.. When questioned on her social media posts, Hart mentioned that she did not remember posting anything regarding the Trump-Russia collusion case, believing that the question was strictly in terms of Roger Stone.
Beyond Hart’s clear case of bias, Obama nominated federal judge Amy Berman Jackson overseeing the case repeatedly defended Hart’s position as forewoman, overlooking the prospect of her negative opinion about the President and his policies being evidence of her inability to fairly or impartially judge Roger Stone’s innocence. Hart was reportedly not alone in her anti-Trump bias, as the overwhelming majority of the jury pool were people who were Democrats, liberals, or those affiliated with high profile Democrat politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Writer Mike Cernovitch, credited with discovering the list of anti-Trump tweets by Hart, asks the pressing question many appalled by the nature of the case were wondering, “How did a federal court judge ever allow a far left wing activist [Tomeka Hart] to sit on a case where a close Trump associate faced trial?”
Having interviewed Stone many times during the trial, Fox News host Tucker Carlson voices the unfairness and injustice of the Roger Stone case perhaps more than anyone else in cable news. It is undisputable that Stone has not been promised an impartial or indifferent jury, and Stone has also called his order to report to jail a “death sentence” during the coronavirus. At 67 years old and with some underlying health issues, Roger Stone being sent to prison during the coronavirus pandemic constitutes a grave threat upon his safety, and an appeal against the above jury misconduct may be Stone’s only hope for gaining true justice in the potential absence of a Presidential pardon.
Elements overlooked by Mueller’s prosecutors and Judge Jackson
Since the fallout from the Roger Stone case, there have been many notable inconsistencies and crucial facts that seemed to have been overlooked by both the former DOJ prosecutors recommending the criminal charges and Judge Jackson. Many ignore the severity of the original charges imposed by Mueller’s prosecutors, who pushed for a sentencing of between seven and nine years in prison. Given the circumstances of the biased jury pool, harshness of the charges against Stone in comparison to absence of any verifiable connection or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the results of the 2016 election, Attorney General William Barr felt compelled to make a unprecedented intervention into the case in February 2020.
Analyzing the facts of the case, Barr recognized that the initial suggestion was far too severe and, according to his account of the situation, ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., to file a second memo that imposed a shorter prison sentence. This following President Trump personally criticizing the severity of the sentencing via Twitter, and complimenting the AG for his intervention, stating “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” Trump’s tweet shared an article by investigative Reporter Chuck Ross, who reminded his followers that Roger Stone was never formerly accused of working with Russia or Wikileaks to influence the election, due to the collapse of the 3 year Mueller investigation finding no evidence of collusion. Instead, Stone was charged with a series of process crimes unrelated to the original Russia-collusion investigation, such as lying to Congress, obstruction of a House investigation, and witness tampering involving empty threats made to Randy Credico. “Despite Democrats’ and the special counsel’s initial suspicions that Stone conspired with Russia or WikiLeaks, investigators found no evidence that the Trump associate had direct contact with anyone involved in stealing or disseminating Democrats’ emails”, Ross states.
AG Barr’s intervention came as such an offense to Mueller’s group, which had been relentless in their efforts to convict multiple Trump associates (Corsi, Manafort, Flynn) including Stone, that nearly every prosecutor involved in the case resigned in protest. A key element that many involved in the case seemed to have overlooked, even among Stone’s own defense team, is that one of the key witnesses, Steve Bannon, provided conflicting testimony during the trial. The New York Post reported that Bannon flipped flopped when describing the nature of Roger Stone’s alleged connection to Wikileaks. This after official records revealed Bannon’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee stated that never once did he and Stone discuss WikiLeaks or its boss Julian Assange at any time during their relationship. This testimony was later declassified and released to the public on May 7th, 2020.
Bannon is famous for being the former chairman of Breitbart News, CEO of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and a senior adviser to President Trump. Ironically, where Stone was charged with lying to Congress concerning his role in the Wikileaks release of hacked DNC emails, Bannon himself lied when he later testified as a witness in Mueller’s case alleging that Stone had in fact discussed Assange and WikiLeaks with him prior to Bannon’s role in Trump’s campaign during August 2016. “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,” according to Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who testified during President Trump’s impeachment hearings in January 2020. Turley also defined the discrepancy in Bannon’s testimonies as diametrically opposite sworn statements before dozens of attorneys. Strangely enough, Stone’s attorney Robert C. Buschel who questioned Bannon, refused to exploit Bannon’s conflicting testimony despite Stone’s push to do so. Roger Stone remains firm that he never discussed Wikileaks with Bannon and was “disappointed by Mr. Bannon’s now-documented betrayal”, speculating that he may have cut a deal with Mueller’s team to change his testimony. Below is an example of Bannon’s conflicting statements courtesy of the New York Post:
Bannon testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Jan. 16, 2018:
- Adam Schiff: “Did Mr. Stone ever discuss with you … his communications with WikiLeaks?”
- Steve Bannon:“No.”
- Adam Schiff:“Or his connections with Julian Assange?”
- Steve Bannon:“No.”
Bannon testifying at Stone’s criminal trial on Nov. 8, 2019:
- Defense attorney Robert Bushel: “Before you joined the Trump campaign on August 14th, 2016, did you ever hear Roger Stone discuss any connections that he had with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?”
- Steve Bannon:“Yes.”
And regarding the corrupted duplicitous nature of Mueller’s group of prosecutors, particularly Aaron Zelinsky, were caught repeatedly lying that they received permission from the Department of Justice to recommend a draconian 7-9 year prison sentence on Roger Stone. Yet, Judge Jackson willfully overlooked this prosecutorial injustice, despite it being reported by Fox News, in addition to the fact that the prosecutors did not seek recommendations or approval from the top brass before Stone’s sentencing hearing. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department”, an unnamed official from the DOJ reiterated to Fox News, “The Department finds seven to nine years extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Mr. Stone’s offenses.” Zelensky not only lied to senior DOJ officials, allegedly had “brow-beat” the newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to go with the unfair and unapproved sentencing memorandum recommending that Stone receive seven to nine years in order to legitimately push for the excessive recommendation, despite being a non-violent, first time offender charged with process crimes. And regarding the charges, Zelensky still peddled a series of phony claims of Roger Stone enabling Trump—Russia collusion and inviting foreign interference in the 2016 Presidential election. This despite Mueller’s conclusions in April 2019 that point to absolutely no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Zelensky has a penchant for seeking to intimidate Stone’s associates to provide them with information (dirt) on the non-existent connection between Roger Stone and Wikileaks over the leaked DNC emails. His attitude was akin to someone who was mad for power, arrogant and even pompous, as Mike Caputo, one of Stone’s associates, overheard Zelensky gloat, “I am the Government.” Despite this, none of the Stone associates were charged or called as witnesses during the trial.
In an exclusive bombshell release of transcripts from 2017, after the former Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell pressured the congenital liar and disgraced California Congressman Adam Schiff to reveal these documents. These transcripts seemed to confirm what Roger Stone had mentioned in March of 2020; namely that while under oath, Crowdstrike sought to withdraw their false claims of Russia hacking the DNC and sent these emails to Wikileaks. While Stone was indicted for lying to Congress, his deniability of Crowdstrike ever having examined the DNC servers in 2016 seems to point to verifiable fact in lieu of the transcripts. The FBI had never inspected the DNC server to verify Crowdstrike’s legitimacy, perceiving the face value of the three draft reports they provided on the matter as being unquestionable truth. But it is now known that Crowdstrike did not confirm Russia’s actions in the DNC leak after they supposedly “hacked” the emails and shipped them to Wikileaks and that the DOJ never received the unredacted copies of Crowdstrike’s three reports, contrary to what many were led to initially believe. Originally, the DNC's lawyer provided the Crowdstrike reports to the Government, claiming that the redacted parts weren't relevant to the investigation, which the FBI never even looked into.
Potential for a Pardon?
In concluding, I urge President Trump to consider the above findings and overlooked truths within the case against Roger Stone if considering invoking a presidential pardon. While it has become obvious that the original sentencing recommendations were part of an overtly corrupt and unequivocally harsh scheme to bypass the DOJ senior officials in order to severely punish Stone, even the revised sentencing has become wholly unjust in light of the evidence and circumstances. Roger Stone’s only perceived “crime” was his refusal to lie and provide Mueller’s gang of bulldog lawyers with incriminating information against President Trump to add fuel to the fire of case promoting non-existent collusion with Russia. As of last Friday, Judge Jackson rejected Stone’s latest motion in court to either delay his surrender date of June 30th or at least mandate home confinement due to the dangers of Coronavirus, instead ordering him to report to prison on July 14th, 2020. This constitutes as a literal death sentence according to Stone, who has declared that at age 67 and with a history of asthma, he is very high risk to contracting and being unable to survive coronavirus if confined to the unsanitary prison selected.
Jackson’s heartless and flawed decision to send Stone to a dangerous prison and into a life-threatening situation presents a gross double-standard when at the same time people like, Democrat porn-star lawyer Michael Avenatti, who stole $25 million from his clients (most notably Nike) while facing additional charges, and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, having pled guilty to numerous financial crimes and became a top Mueller witness against the President, in addition to Manafort partner Rick Gates, who became a witness against Stone and knowingly lied at trial; have all been moved to the safety of home confinement due to scare over coronavirus. Yet, why has Stone’s medically justifiable pleas for the same treatment been so unjustifiably denied in court? In lieu of this injustice, Roger Stone continues to fight for his freedom, preparing a full appeal against Jackson’s July 14th mandate, organizing an online grassroots campaign to either commute Stone’s sentence so he can pursue an appeal, and continues to encourage an official pardon from the White House. It is becoming more and more apparent that President Trump, who has repeatedly displayed disgust by what has been transpiring against Roger Stone, needs to intervene to officially drop this politically charged, highly corrupt and duplicitous sentencing, before Mr. Stone’s few remaining options for relief officially run out. I pray for a swift and official pardon of Roger Stone, urge readers to donate what they can to www.StoneDefenseFund.com and reiterate the infamous slogan: “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong!”
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.