The four so-called “non-political career line prosecutors’ in the recent Mueller witch hunt prosecution I was subjected to, all of whom are in-fact rabid partisans with direct political ties to either Clinton or Obama continue to flog the false narrative that I was somehow given ‘special treatment” when senior officials rejected their 7 to 9 year sentencing recommendation because it was both legally flawed and was a naked attempt to railroad me into spending life in prison.
E-mails obtained by BuzzFeed News through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit are heavily redacted and do not, by any means, bolster the account of the four politicized prosecutors. It is notable that even Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who ruled for the Government in every pre-trial motion save one, disagreed with the harsh sentence for a first-time non-violent process crime.
Aaron Zelinsky, a former contributor to the Huffington Post needs to stop pretending he is a “non-political career line prosecutor” and acknowledge he served as an attorney for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, a political appointment. His recent testimony before the House Judiciary committee was an amusing blend of hearsay, perjury and obfuscation.
The seven to nine year sentencing recommendation was excessive in view of the fact that it attempted to increase my prison sentence based on crimes I had neither been charged with nor convicted of. This includes publishing a book (“The Myth of Russian Collusion” HYPERLINK https://stonecoldtruth.com/product/the-myth-of-russian-collusion-signed-copy/ ) in violation of the unconstitutional gag order placed on me by Judge Amy Berman Jackson (in fact, my book published prior to the imposition of her gag order) and threatening a federal judge (which I have denied under oath because the image alleged by the media to be a crosshair is in fact the trademarked logo of an organization called Corruption Central; which created the image that I posted HYPERLINK https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/roger-stone-threaten-kill-federal-judge/ ) I was neither charged nor convicted of such an offense. There are others.
The excessive sentencing recommendation cobbled together by Zelinsky and former Obama White House Deputy Legal Counsel Jonathan Kravis also accuses me of “foreign interference” in our election— again, not an offense I was charged with or convicted of. While Judge Amy Berman Jackson had a free hand to levy any sentence she wanted to impose and Barr’s DOJ never formally withdrew the 7 to 9-year sentencing recommendation, even she found the 7 to 9-year sentence excessive. I have appealed my conviction to the DC Circuit of Appeals on numerous grounds.
As Attorney General Barr himself said at the recent Judiciary hearing ” The US Attorney came to me and said that the four aligned prosecutors were threatening to resign unless they could recommend seven to nine years, but there was no comparable case to support that. It would have been a very disparate sentence. All the cases were clustered around the three years sentence. And the way they had gotten to the seven to nine was by applying an enhancement. There are debates all the time within the Department of Justice about the proper calculations under the guidelines and whether a particular enhancement applies or doesn’t apply, and those are usually worked out and resolved, but here they were saying that they were taking an enhancement that has traditionally been applied to mafioso and things like that, threatening a witness. They were applying it to him because he had a phone call at night where he told the witness that, “If you want to get it on, let’s get it on and I’ll take your dog.” We felt that technically could apply, but in this case, it really didn’t reflect the underlying conduct. And the overarching requirement at the Department of Justice is that we do not presume and automatically apply the guidelines, we make individual assessments of the defendant and what is really just under the case and nothing that is excessive.
My lawyers pointed out that Randy Credico , the witness I was accused of tampering with, both testified at trial that he never felt threatened by me and wrote a letter to the Judge saying the same thing. It’s even more striking when you know that one exculpatory witness who was dragged before the grand jury said Credico “threatened to put a whole in my head” if he dared contradict Credico’s testimony before the same grand jury. This same witness, filmmaker David Lugo , turned over thirty pages of late-night text messages from Credico threatening him to keep his mouth shut. Strangely Credico was not indicted for ‘witness tampering” by Mueller’s dirty cops.
Barr also told the House Committee: “These individuals were trying to force the US Attorney, who was new in the office, to adopt seven to nine, and I made the decision, “No, we are going to leave it up to the judge.” And later, when that was not done that evening, I told people we had to go back and correct that the next morning. So that’s the sequence of events. But at the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The judge said she would not have gone along, she didn’t think, with the first recommendation because the enhancement artificially inflated the exposure of the defendant and she came at exactly where I had come out. So at the end of the day, the question is fairness to the individual. And even though I was going to get a lot of criticism for doing that, I think at the end of the day, my obligation is to be fair to the individual.
The 76 pages of e-mails turned over to BuzzFeed News by the Executive Office of US Attorneys were heavily redacted. The agency withheld 152 pages in releasing the emails Monday and indicated some of those records are sealed and others were referred to the FBI for review. These many redactions need to be explained or removed. This isn’t some national security case. There are no sensitive intelligence, diplomatic or military implications. All parties involved are U.S. citizens. There is no continuing investigation nor other pending cases involving its subject matter.
This is a domestic criminal prosecution of a sole defendant by jury trial in a federal district court for offenses implicating only legislative oversight of domestic political activities. A prosecutor in the case made a public protest of withdrawing from the case over the government’s handling of the sentencing. He then volunteered public testimony to a legislative oversight committee alleging that the handling of the sentencing by his prosecution team was subject to undue influence by DOJ officials for ulterior political motives.
Zelinsky has made his and his cohorts’ communications concerning sentencing in this case, on any government account or device, whether internally or externally (especially externally) subject to complete disclosure or disgorgement to the public to scrutinize the substance of his allegations in their full context and certainly to the defendant, whose disposition in the case has been called into question, the product of political corruption.
Selective secrecy and piecemeal public disclosures of these communications, which fall short of providing a full accounting of Mr. Zelinsky’s and his cronies’ conduct in the sentencing phase of this case which led his responsible DOJ superiors to have to intervene, override and correct the government’s sentencing pleadings to a U.S. District Judge, are not only indefensible but at this point are prejudicial to my due process rights on appeal.
The full record of Zelinsky’s and his cohorts’ communications with any DOJ employees and any outside parties on their government emails, phones or other means of communication are relevant and necessary evidence the disclosure of which is necessary for me to vindicate myself or for the Zelinsky-Kravis team to exonerate themselves and conclusively demonstrate their own clean hands as it concerns any political considerations or influence.
It is a serious miscarriage of justice when a citizen is convicted on evidence derived from the government’s intrusive seizure and total scrutiny of all of his personal communications, public and private, only to have the government’s communications potentially revealing corruption in the conduct of his case somehow deemed secret or confidential or beyond full disclosure.
Please support the Roger Stone Legal Defense fund here.