Roger Stone: Sussman Case Is Tip Of The Iceberg In Government Plot To Frame Me
Information about Roger Stone: Sussman Case Is Tip Of The Iceberg In Government Plot To Frame Me
By Roger Stone for RealClearPolitics
Understanding the possible implications of Special Counsel John Durham’s recent indictment of prominent Democratic lawyer and Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann requires a refresher course on one of the most notorious examples of mass hypnosis in American history.
Perkins Coie is the international law firm based in Seattle that represented Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Sussmann was recently indicted by a federal grand jury on evidence provided by Durham. The charge is lying to the FBI in an effort to mislead investigators regarding supposed transactions between The Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
The allegations later proved to be false.
It now appears that Jake Sullivan, a longtime Clinton aide who now serves as White House national security adviser, also lied to FBI agents regarding the dirty trick in which Sullivan, Sussmann and others essentially fabricated the “communications” between the Russian bank and Donald Trump entities.
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? That’s what happened to me. Or perhaps the FBI will invite OAN to film this exclusive takedown – as the FBI allowed CNN to do when I was arrested.
Don’t hold your breath.
The U.S. Justice Department, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Office, and their willing handmaidens in the establishment media have all 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 emails being supplied to WikiLeaks for publication.
Support Conservative Voices!
Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox.
The New York Times and Washington Post both reported that U.S. 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.
This still unproven claim was the predicate for my own criminal indictment secured by Mueller, although the trial judge in my case denied me the opportunity to present this defense through the introduction of forensic evidence and other expert testimony. Both the government and the media insist that the hack of the DNC by “the Russians” was “orchestrated by Guccifer 2.0.”
The government has presented no real evidence to support this theory and I’ve come to believe that “Guccifer 2.0” is actually a creation of U.S. intelligence. For starters, this alleged Romanian hacker was using software registered to an employee at the Democratic National Committee.
If you buy into the government’s narrative — unchallenged by our supposed “investigative reporters” in the media — that “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC and gave stolen data to WikiLeaks, I suggest you read my own examination of this thinly sourced claim.
It’s far more likely that “Guccifer 2.0” is former CIA Director John Brennan than a Russian intelligence cut-out.
The press would have a field day over an entirely innocuous direct message exchange that I had with “Guccifer 2.0” on Twitter. The fact that 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 meaningless to the hysterics who cover national politics for the corporate media.
After my conviction, Robert Mueller wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post specifically asserting that I was tracked “communicating with Russian intelligence officer(s).” But I have no reason to believe that “Guccifer 2.0” is really a Russian intelligence asset, and if Mueller does, he has never provided proof of that to the courts or the American people.
As he knows, the contact he cites came after the fact, was innocuous in content, and was reported at the time. And his sly use of the plural demonstrates to any discerning and unbiased journalist that Mueller’s entire inquest was done in bad faith.
The theme of Mueller’s op-ed was 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 detail Mueller’s own misdeeds: covering up the Saudi connection to the 9/11, bungling the 2001 anthrax attacks, his role in sending uranium samples to Russia, and his “chilling” coverup — that’s the characterization of a federal judge, not me — of mob murders in Boston where FBI agents framed four men for murder in order to hide the crimes of their own rogue agents.
In my own case, the FBI was finally forced to admit during pretrial motions that it never inspected the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee and that the widely accepted claim that they had been hacked rested entirely on a report by CrowdStrike, a third-party partisan IT investigative firm hired by Michael Sussmann.
The government went to great lengths to ensure that the CrowdStrike report went 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 U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson that my lawyers not be given the CrowdStrike report.
She didn’t need much convincing. In the 55-minute tirade against me at sentencing, the judge lambasted me for having the audacity to question the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation and said I had been convicted of “lying to cover up for Donald Trump” — something I was neither charged with nor convicted of doing.
Only after the FBI’s stunning admission that it had never inspected the DNC servers began to get traction in the media did the entire baseless claim that I had “threatened” Judge Jackson become a media-feeding frenzy. I don’t believe this was a coincidence.
I’m convinced Justice Department officials felt they needed to silence me, lest I undercut the entire legal premise of their bogus investigation based on an online hack that never took place.
That’s my opinion. But what is a matter of fact — a matter of the official record — is Jackson 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 premise of Mueller’s entire investigation.
And though the CrowdStrike report remains classified to this day, documents declassified by former acting DNI Director Rick Grenell 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 also denied a motion by my attorneys to have the entire unredacted Mueller Report used in my defense. Instead, she determined which sections my defense attorneys would be allowed to have.
Only later did we learn that 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 emails.
Such manipulation of Mueller’s final report was not exposed until Nov. 3, 2020, when the DOJ was forced by court order to release the sections of Mueller’s Report that would have undermined my prosecution.
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 emails clearly proves I had no motive to lie when testifying under oath to Congress and would have undercut the entire premise of the government’s highly contrived charges of “lying to Congress” against me.
Actually, any misstatement I made under oath before the House Intelligence Committee was entirely immaterial. Nothing I said was designed to hide any underlying crime because there was no underlying crime to hide. President Trump was right — the whole thing was a hoax.
My guess is that it seems that way to the Russians, too.
During my trial, Mueller’s prosecutors promised the judge that they would introduce evidence against me that was collected through a search warrant in the Russian hacking case, but no such evidence was introduced.
Like the infamous and debunked Steele dossier used by the FBI to open the original “Russia collusion” investigation, the CrowdStrike report was a fabricated rationale to unleash the power of the FBI and the U.S. intelligence agencies against private individuals for the strictly political purpose of removing a duly elected president from office.
This, rather than Watergate, is the greatest single abuse of power in American history, an abuse of power for which no one has yet been charged or punished. Perhaps the conviction of Mr. Sussmann will be the beginning.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.