Dear Juanita

(By Roger Stone)

I think Juanita Broaddrick is a brave and courageous lady, but Juanita is mistaken when she recently commented that I played “no role” in her appearance at the second Clinton-Trump debate, alongside the Clintons’ other best-known sex-crime victims.

I dedicated my book The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution to Juanita Broaddrick because I admire her courage and her grace.

Because I did not make the actual arrangements for Juanita and the other Clinton victims [Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton (a Hillary victim)] to attend the debate, it is understandable that Juanita might be unclear about my role in bringing these ladies to the forefront of the national consciousness at a critical moment in the final weeks of the campaign, undoubtedly to Bill Clinton’s mortification, which he skillfully masked.

In short, I am a political strategist, not a campaign advance man. Regardless of who booked their travel and arranged for their admission to the debate, and the like, the idea of highlighting these female Clinton victims and, more importantly, of exposing Hillary’s role in bullying these women into silence, was a strategy I began pushing even before the Trump campaign’s formal launch in early 2015.

A full year before Steve Bannon even joined the Trump campaign, I was well underway in advocating for these women to be given a high profile, including their introduction to a national debate audience.  Prior to the Republican National Convention, I was urging this strategy to newly-installed Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as to Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio.

Clearly Hillary Clinton’s plan was to capture a disproportionate percentage of women voters based on her specious claims that she is somehow a champion for women. I felt it essential to expose and highlight Hillary’s past as an abuser of women who would psychologically and emotionally rape Bill’s victim’s after he had raped them physically.

I have never claimed that I interfaced with Bill’s victims regarding the specifics of the debate appearances. During the Cleveland convention I discussed the matter over lunch with Breitbart reporter Aaron Klein, whose reporting on Broaddrick’s experience in several incredible interviews with NBC was absolutely stellar.

Both Klein and attorney Candice Jackson, who also wrote a compelling book about Bill’s history of sexual assault and how it impacted the lives of Broaddrick and the others, assured me that these women were willing to attend a debate to face down Bill and Hillary.

Adding to the confusion (or misinformation), David Bossie also erroneously told Fox News that the debate appearance idea was Steve Bannon’s. Given how long it took Bossie and Corey Lewandowski to finally produce their lightweight gossipy book about the Trump Campaign, long after I wrote and published the definitive account in the Making of the President 2016, I am surprised he even remembers what actually went down.

Regardless of these erroneous accounts about the origin and genesis of the Clinton victim debate showcase, I have already supplied an e-mail string that clearly shows how I handed the idea to Steve Bannon weeks ahead of the debate, as reported in The Wrap.

Although Klein is copied on this e-mail string he denies the idea as anyone’s but Bannon’s. Klein’s selective memory in unsurprising given his place on the Breitbart payroll.

Infowars reporter Dr. Jerome Corsi also covered this story, albeit far more thoroughly, in a longer piece that included other corroborating emails.

While this is all largely water under the bridge, it is nonetheless important that the record be set straight when there are those who have set out to muddy it and give credit where credit is most demonstrably NOT due.

  • John Buatti

    https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/07/20/CREC-2017-07-20-pt1-PgH6137-5.pdf?#page=6
    scroll down until you see this “[[Page H6142]]” for the FISA Court ordered by Obama:
    https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/07/20/house-section/article/H6137-5
    Really? She is setting Donald Trump, Jr., up, and the Obama
    administration considered that important enough to let this person who
    they previously realized should not be allowed in the country to come
    in to do that kind of important work, set up Donald Trump?
    Well, anyway, turns out Veselnitskaya was connected to Fusion GPS.
    That is the Democrat opposition research firm, which employed a former
    British spy who used Russian contacts to produce the infamous and now
    debunked “urinary dossier” smearing Trump. Veselnitskaya hired Fusion
    GPS head, Glenn Simpson, to work on behalf of Prevezon, the company she
    was allowed into the country to represent. Fusion then hired
    Christopher Steele, the British spy who drew on Russian sources to
    produce his dossier, and then they made him available for
    private briefings on the dossier with left-leaning media sources such
    as Mother Jones, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo, The
    New Yorker, CNN.

    And, by the way, there is Veselnitskaya’s social media account, which
    is decidedly more aligned with the Fusion GPS side of the equation

    [[Page H6142]]

    than with Trump. She was no friend of the Trumps. Every indication was
    she wanted the Trumps taken down.
    Trump, Jr., met with her. It appears to be a setup.
    I was guest hosting Patriot Tonight the other night. Some people say:
    Why do you do this media?
    One of my jobs is to not only be aware of what is going on here, try
    to vote properly, argue the right way on different bills, but it is
    also to make sure that people in America know what is going on. And a
    guy called in, very interesting, but he seemed to have a pretty good
    grip on all of this. It is just amazing how many American citizens
    across the country–they are not confused by the smokescreen that we
    get from the mainstream media.
    So if timelines are interesting to you, there is this: reportedly the
    Obama administration sought permission to electronically monitor Trump
    Tower in early June, and the FISA court refused to grant it, but in
    October, they allowed it. Isn’t that something?
    Once they set up Donald Trump, Jr., with this friend of the Obama
    administration, this Russian attorney who was using the Democrats’ own
    opposition research firm, she was helping them, they then convinced a
    judge: Go ahead and let us monitor everything going on in Trump Tower.
    When the judge initially refused to do that.
    The article said: “So if you’d like to don your tinfoil hat and play
    the collusion game, try this on for size–when the Obama administration
    couldn’t get permission from the FISA court to surveil Trump, they
    allowed Veselnitskaya back in the country to take part in those
    Washington activities”–meeting up with Donald Trump.
    “ . . . and in the meantime”–she used–“the administration’s pals
    at Fusion”–GPS–“with attempting to hook Trump, Jr.”–into a basis
    for them getting a warrant.
    There was nothing to that meeting, yet they used it, got a warrant to
    further monitor everything going on in the Trump Tower in October.
    It just keeps pointing back to the fact we have got to get an
    independent counsel to investigate Mueller and his ties to Comey and
    Lynch and the Clintons, and get to the bottom of this mess. Yes, I want
    an investigation, because this is looking pretty lurid right now.
    Just in the time left, I do need to mention, this continuing push by
    friends across the aisle and the Obama holdovers in our executive
    branch, they think net neutrality is something we have got to have.
    Maureen Collins in The Federalist has a great article on July 19, and
    she points out regarding net neutrality:
    “The debate over net neutrality can easily turn into techie-jargon
    that no one understands. Here is the basic gist: the internet is made
    up of bits. Proponents of net neutrality want to make sure these bits
    are all treated equally, meaning all web content appears on your
    computer at the same speed and with the same quality.
    “That sounds like a good thing, right? Supporters say that net
    neutrality would make all content equal by ensuring that internet
    providers cannot buy faster or higher quality content. The free market,
    they say, is inherently unfair and only a third party–the government–
    can determine how content should be treated. But that sounds exactly
    like textbook New-Deal progressivism.
    “You see, this is not a question of whether or not internet content
    should be equally available. Rather, it is the much older question of
    who should determine that content is equally available: consumers, or
    the government?”
    “Even the background of net neutrality is straight out of the New
    Deal playbook. Like many administrative programs, the fight for net
    neutrality began when similar provisions failed in Congress. After
    legislative failures, what is a good progressive to do?”
    “Progressive,” that term bothers me, kind of like “single payer.”
    Single payer means socialized medicine, government-run and rationed
    healthcare. What does progressive mean? Well, it actually is a
    throwback. It is socialism. Some socialists are even hardcore
    communists, not all are, but they want an Orwellian government where
    they watch and know everything going on, and they know better than

  • SunnyBDale

    I’ve been following Roger Stone in the press for a long time. I knew from when I was watching that debate that it was Stone’s idea. Never thought Bannon was savvy enough to think of such a brilliant move.

  • Trumptard McNuggets

    Stone can whine all he wants. It was Bannon’s idea, and he got fired (again) anyway. The first time was for taking his wife to swingers clubs while working on a political campaign. They tend to frown on embarrassing things like that.