Roger Stone is angry.
Just a day or so ago he announced that he was suing Rep Hakeem Jeffries for defamation of character. Jeffries claimed that Stone and Paul Manafort agreed to withhold evidence against Trump in exchange for pardons.
The ironic thing is if Jeffries said the same thing on the floor of the House, it would be perfectly legal.
Now, he has turned his sights on those responsible for the early morning raid at his house. He is suing the DOJ and a list of individuals for $25 million dollars.
Those he is suing, besides the DOJ, include Robert Mueller, James Comey, John Brennan, Rod Rosenstein, Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Jeanie Rhee, and Michael Morando.
On page 178 of the newly released documents from the FBI it says:
“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.”
“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated.
Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails.
Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability.
See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).
“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”
Stone points out that the alleged judge in the case withheld this information from his lawyers and that even if he did receive emails from Wikileaks and had it published, which he says he did not do, it would not have been illegal and yet he was convicted and sent to prison until. Fortunately he never had to go behind bars because President Trump pardoned him about days before he was due to report.
Also missing until acting DNI Director Richard Grenell ordered their release we found out that a Crowdstrike executive testified that not only could they not prove that the Russians hacked the DNC emails, they could even honestly say anyone hacked onto the servers which could indicate an inside job.