Connect with us

Politics

Roger Stone on Search Warrant Release: ‘There Was No Illegal Activity and Certainly No Russian Collusion’

Published

on

CNN FBI raid Roger Stone house FL

The Justice Department released on Tuesday a list of documents related to search warrants from its investigation into Roger Stone, after a group of news organizations sued for access to the files.

Full Statement from Roger Stone on Judge’s release Tuesday of FBI search warrants to his home on Jan. 25, 2019.

———————————————————————————————

The Search warrants ordered released today by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper proves the baseless over-reach of the Mueller witch hunt and exonerate me from the crazed left-wing media charges of Russian collusion, Wikileaks collaboration and the receipt and dissemination of stolen e-mails, false narratives that ruined my life for the last 3 years. Although there are private communications contained in the warrants, they prove no crimes. I have no trepidation about their release as they confirm there was no illegal activity and certainly no Russian collusion by me during the 2016 Election. There is, to this day, no evidence that I had or knew about the source or content of the Wikileaks disclosures prior to their public release.

Nearly every day, I would turn on the news and open the papers and read that I had committed treason against our great country, that I would be charged with espionage, trafficking in stolen e-mails and other cyber-crimes.  Ultimately, despite the colonoscopy into my life, the Muller investigation could not find what the media wanted and insisted was there or that I did anything wrong in the 2016 election of my friend, President Donald Trump.  Although I was not part of his formal campaign, I worked hard-and legally-to help elect the President.

The search warrants and the affidavits used to support them released today clearly demonstrate the overreach of the Mueller investigation. Prosecutors and FBI investigators alleged, under oath, to several federal judges and magistrates that they had probable cause to investigate me for outrageous crimes for which they had and found no evidence. In the early days of the Mueller inquisition, the crimes they tried to pin on me were: “Conspiracy Against the United States” “Foreign Contribution Ban” “Fraud and Related Activities in Connection with Computers” “Wire Fraud” “Aiding and Abetting” “Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer” “Accessory After the Fact” just to name a few. All of this based on nothing more than the exercise of my First Amendment rights and my public Twitter feed.

When my attorneys argued the warrants and affidavits were nothing more than a collection of conclusory statements, the Judge in my case sided with the Mueller inquisitors. We forcefully argued that the warrants and the affidavits lacked evidence and only contained supposition.  There were no factual allegations supporting the issuance of the warrants.  They were clearly based on misrepresentations by the FBI and the Muller team.

The uncharged conduct- crimes the Mueller dirty cops said they had probable cause to secure the warrants- particularly relied upon the assumptions the Russian state was responsible for hacking of the DNC. The Government admitted in discovery in my trial that they relied on a redacted draft memo from Crowdstike- hardly an unbiased or credible source and the Government admitted the FBI never inspected the DNC servers. Screenshots of a computer server are like photos of a murder weapon-they cannot be examined. The sur-reply filed by former Assistant US Attorney Jonathan Kravis claiming the Mueller investigators had additional proof that the Russians hacked the DNC, included none of the alleged proof and was a fraud upon the Court. I was barred by Judge Jackson from proving this at trial through the production of forensic evidence and the testimony of experts such as former NSA Russia specialist and Technical Director, Bill Binney.

The much-publicized raid and exhaustive 13- hour search of my home and office yielded no evidence used against me at trial. When no evidence of Russian collusion, collaboration with Wikileaks, receipt or dissemination of stolen e-mails- including the stolen e-mails of John Podesta – was found, I was charged with lying to Congress even though there was no underlying crime to lie about and the Trump campaign’s interest in the already announced Wikileaks disclosures was a matter of public record. Testifying voluntary I had no intent or motive to lie as the matters I am charged with lying about were already in the public domain.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending