Jury Must Nullify in Roger Stone Trial

If the current pre-trial proceedings stay on track – and there is nothing going on right now to suggest they won’t – Roger Stone will be going to trial in less than 100 days.

Roger Stone

100 days before his life is put in the hands of 12 residents of the District of Columbia that he has never met – and, except for this trial, would probably never meet.

12 people who will decide whether Roger Stone spends his remaining years as a free man or as a prisoner in some maximum-security federal prison.

12 people who, given the demographics of Washington, DC, are much more likely to be registered Democrats rather than registered Republicans (As of March 31, 2016, 76% of the registered voters in D.C. were Democrats – and 6% were Republicans).


How We Got Here

As noted in prior posts, Stone is facing seven criminal charges – six of which are related to his appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on September 26, 2017.

U.S. Capitol Building

The other charge is related to discussions that Stone had with Randy Credico, a comedian and talk-show host who was also subpoenaed to appear before the same committee.

Randy Credico

During the course of his appearance before the HPSCI, Stone made several statements that Special Counsel Robert Mueller subsequently alleged are untrue.

As set forth in his indictment, here is what Stone is accused of doing:
– Falsely testifying that he hadn’t had email communications with any third parties about Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks – and that he hadn’t had any communications via emails or text messages that referred to Assange;
– Falsely testifying that his August 2016 references to his “intermediary” with Assange were about Credico when, in fact, they were about Corsi;
– Falsely testifying that he did not ask Corsi to communicate anything to Assange – and that he did not ask Corsi to do anything on his behalf;
– Falsely testifying that he and Corsi did not communicate via emails and text messages about Wikileaks; and
– Falsely testifying that he never discussed any of his conversations with Corsi and Credico with any members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Mueller also claimed that Stone tried to interfere with Credico’s testimony before the HPSCI. As set forth in his indictment, Stone is accused of intentionally trying to persuade Credico not to appear before the HPSCI.

Robert Mueller

So, there we have it.

Roger Stone is accused of telling six lies during the course of his testimony before a Congressional committee – and of trying to convince Credico not to testify before that same committee (Credico did, in fact, show up – and pleaded the Fifth Amendment in response to every question he was asked).


Evidence & Likely Outcome

Based on the pre-trial filings to date – and the prosecution’s projection that it will finish presenting its side of the case within 5-8 days – it would appear that this is going to be the proverbial open-and-shut case.

For purposes of this discussion, we can presume that the government has documents to support each of the six counts that concern Stone’s alleged lying. That means that in the normal course of events, Stone could easily be convicted on all six of those counts.

The seventh count is going to be a little harder for the government to prove – especially since Credico did show up to testify before the committee. So, unless Credico testifies that he thought Stone was trying to unduly influence him not to testify, Stone will have a good chance of being acquitted on that count.

But if that’s how this trial plays out, the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, will still be able to impose what will amount to a death sentence on Roger Stone.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

A death sentence for telling six relatively inconsequential lies to a Congressional committee.

It’s always a bad idea to lie to a Congressional committee or an FBI agent.

Especially when there are so many ways to avoid answering the question without lying.

“I don’t remember”.

“Not to the best of my recollection”.

“Not as far as I can remember”.

“I respectfully refuse to answer that question in accordance with the rights that are guaranteed to me by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”.


The Jury Will be Voting “in the Blind”

Would all 12 members of jury vote to convict Roger Stone of any of the pending charges if they knew that doing so would mean that he will likely be sentenced to a term in prison for the rest of his life?

Probably not.

Even a jury made up of 12 Democrats would likely think that such a penalty is disproportionate to the charges.

The problem is that the jury will not be informed about the consequences of their decision.

So, the jury will be voting “in the blind” – without any knowledge of what sort of penalties might be imposed on Stone if they find him guilty on any of the charges he is facing.

And the jury, of course, will have absolutely no role in determining what Stone’s actual sentence will be. That will be left entirely up to Judge Berman Jackson.

Which means that the only way for the jury in this case to ensure that a huge injustice is not done is to utilize its power of jury nullification.


What is Jury Nullification – and How Does It Work?

There are various types of jury nullification.

Sometimes a jury will vote to acquit because even though they have concluded the defendant is guilty, they think the applicable law(s) is unjust.

Other times, a jury will vote to acquit because they think the prosecutor has misapplied the applicable law in a case.

If jurors were informed about what the potential penalties were in criminal cases, there would likely be many more instances of jury nullification.

Jury nullification is not an official part of our criminal justice system.

But it is the result of two bedrock rules of that system:
(1) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong decision”; and
(2) A defendant who has been acquitted of a charged crime cannot be tried again for that same crime.

Roger Stone’s case is a great example of when jury nullification would be appropriate.

Did he lie when he testified before the HPSCI Committee?

Probably so…or let’s even say absolutely so.

Does he deserve to spend the rest of his in federal prison because of his lies?



Jurors Should Be Informed About Potential Sentences

The Stone case points up the need to change our criminal justice system so that jurors are fully informed of the consequences of their actions.

Why shouldn’t the jury know what the applicable sentencing guidelines will be if it chooses to find someone guilty of a charge?

Shouldn’t that be part of the jury’s deliberative process?

Wouldn’t at least some members of Stone’s jury vote differently if they knew that he was facing 50 years in prison instead of 5 years?

What is the rationale for not giving that information to jurors?

If we’re going to allow jurors to make life-altering decisions regarding defendants, shouldn’t we give them as much information as possible to do their jobs?

What say you, Frank Report readers?

Finally, even one individual juror can vote to acquit and hang the jury. This is entirely fair and part of our system. The sole purpose of requiring an anonymous jury to convict or acquit presupposes cases of hung juries. Provided jurors vote their conscience, they have the right to not reach unanimity.

Some of the most famous cases of jury nullification were hung juries. And that may be the best we can expect in Stone’s case.

No doubt the judge will order the jury to go back into deliberations and reach unanimity if it looks like there will be a hung jury, but she cannot punish a juror for his or her verdict if it is in accordance with their conscience.

This is the sole purpose for juries, not judges rendering verdicts. That sometimes the law or its application is unfair and the jury is our safeguard against it,

This is why Thomas Jefferson wrote that the jury is more important than the right to vote:

“Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making [of] them.”

Take a moment to understand that Jefferson said jury nullification is more important than voting since jurors have the final say on what laws can be enforced.

So in the case of Roger Stone, the jury or some one or more jurors should send a message to government that 50 years is inappropriate as a sentence and overcharging cannot continue in America.

It will send a loud clear message in what promises to be a hugely watched trial.



About the author

K.R. Claviger


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • This man practically challenged the government to charge him with crimes. Actually I sensed from that, that he’s insane….a same person wouldn’t give the finger to the FBI…..( the FBI is notoriously Republican)

  • You would leave the sentencing judge’s responsibilities to a popularity contest. Do you not trust our judges to perform their roles intelligently and skillfully? I do. Stop advocating and let justice be done.

    • This cat Stone deserves to go in prison. As one commentator said, he challenged them to charge him, he is a loud mouth braggadocio. I have watched interview of him, not surprise that he would lie to a congressional committee. I detest assholes like him that masquerade as if they are highly intelligent, when in fact are fuking dunce bats.

  • There’s still so many vapid brainwashed moonbats of trump derangement syndrome that can’t lose their confirmation bias and see through their cognitive dissidents they still think there’s a trump Russia Nexus there’s some secret Trump Russian collusion that Mueller just couldn’t get to the bottom of it’s all fake news there’s no Rodger Stone Russian Trump collusion it’s fake news wake up you dipshitz this court case is a joke the only reason it was done with Mueller was trying to invent construct a path from Trump to the Russians using course I and stone but they wouldn’t go along with it


    • Ok, as an outsider to US politics, I’m willing to bet that whoever you are railing against in CAPS, is nowhere near as culpable as the person you are defending. Call it a naive rush to judgment, but there it is. Your online screaming does you and anyone you may be advocating for absolutely no favours. You sound neurotic and stupid to call for the arrest of an entire federal bureau. If this is the baseline of Roger Stone’s defence, then it seems to me that he didn’t exactly create any useful social force. The man is lucky to have a loyal friend in Frank. That is ONE thing I can appreciate, that stands in his favour.

  • Parlato over the target as one or two left wing shitbaggers trolling. Their depends gonna be filled to the breaking point when Roger walks.

  • The author of the Frank Report is mistaken about how federal prison terms are calculated.

    Each of counts 1-6 carries a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment UP TO 5 YEARS. Count 7 carries a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment UP TO 20 YEARS.

    None of the 7 counts has a mandatory minimum prison term. Furthermore, each term of imprisonment, if any, would be served CONCURRENTLY, not consecutively.

    So if convicted on all 7 counts, the maximum prison term would be 20 years, not 50 years.

    If convicted only on counts 1-6, the maximum prison term would be 5 years, not 30 years.

    The sentencing judge would be guided by the statutory sentencing guidelines in determining the term of imprisonment. The guidelines take into account the nature of each offense and the defendant’s prior criminal history when computing the recommended range of imprisonment.

    • The decision as to whether the terms would be consecutive or concurrent is up to the sentencing judge. So, while your math is correct – i.e., 5 years maximum for counts #1 through #6 and 20 years maximum for count #7 – the total potential sentence is indeed 50 years.

      And if you don’t think that Judge Amy Berman Jackson will mete out consecutive sentences, go ask Paul Manafort how he ended up spending 7.5 years in jail instead of 4.

    • I should also note that even with your calculation of a 20-year maximum sentence, that would very likely be a death sentence for a man who is 66 years old.

  • Yeah Mueller said Stone lied but he also said Joseph mitsud is Russian and that Constantine klimek works with the KGB to known fallacies.
    The Wiseman dossier or Mueller report whatever you want to call it is a pure fabrication it’s not even based in reality

  • The division in our country is because we have so many vapid clueless leftist that swallow all the lies from the fake news this is Kafka ask dystopic Trump Russian collusion is a fabrication a hoax and you people still believe it after like 4 years they’ve been trying to Railroad Trump for 4 years you guys they started the investigation at the end of 2015 they started railroading him four and a half years ago you morons and they still got nothing

  • There’s still so many vapid brainwashed moonbats of trump derangement syndrome that can’t lose their confirmation bias and see through their cognitive dissonance they still think there’s a trump Russia Nexus or there’s some secret Trump Russian collusion that Mueller just couldn’t get to the bottom of. It’s all fake news. There’s no Roger Stone Russian Trump collusion. It’s fake news. Wake up, you dipshits. This court case is a joke. The only reason it was done is because Mueller was trying to invent/construct a path from Trump to the Russians using Corsi and Stone but they wouldn’t go along with it.

  • If only he was a Democrat like Jim Comey or McCabe or one of the other 14 FBI agents Phoebe off scot-free the left would probably start a go fund me for him give him a million dollars like they did to McCabe

  • Lie to Congress under oath–go to jail. I don’t have any sympathy for Stone. He deserves whatever he gets. This administration lies with abandon. It needs to stop.

    • Does your opinion hold true for Jim Comey and the rest of the FBI deep-stayers that lied about them

  • This article is crap. The opinion of the author is meant to influence readers and attempt to conjure up sympathy for Roger Stone. He deserves none.

  • It amazes me that the American legal system is so polluted by politics that a commentary writer can’t discuss a case without implying the outcome is rigged because of the demographics of the jurisdiction.
    It’s also telling that the writer is of the opinion that the law should be different for some people, but probably not for others.
    I wonder how the author would feel about the case if Stone was not part of Trump’s band if grifters, but instead was a 30 year old with ties to Obama.
    I bet he would be saying throw the book at him, but because he is the crooked friend if a crooked president who happens to be of the same political persuasion, the system should look the other way.
    That, my friends, is how it is done in shit hole countries.

    • I would have exactly the same reaction if this were a Democratic operative. My issues have nothing to do with who is being treated unfairly by the U.S. criminal justice system. My issues have to do with prosecutors who abuse their positions by over-charging defendants and forcing them to accept unfair plea deals.

      • You realize that you are defending a self-professed Dirty Trickster who helped Donald Trump cheat via stolen bounty from Russia, in order to get elected, right? This is not small potatoes. Just because Stone and Corsi are conspiracy-riddled kooks, doesn’t mean their actions were meaningless. Roger Stone lied for a reason, he threatened Credicos dog for a reason. Probably because he’s hiding something. Considering Roger Stone continues to try to confuse and fool the public with his Crowdstrike nonsense, he does not deserve sympathy. He knew about Podesta’ s stolen emails before everybody and he lied about it!! Did Rebecca Mercer pay you to write this article?

      • If you can’t do the time…. don’t do the crime. He shouldn’t have lied, Giving false statements to congress, or law enforcement/FBI is a crime. He knew this when he was sworn in.

  • Mr Stone has shown and continues to show contempt for the law. To endorse his position invites anarchy. Maybe he doesn’t deserve life in prison, but your proposal that he should be given a free pass is contrary to the responsibility of a citizen towards the republic.

    • Where exactly did I suggest that Roger Stone be given a “free pass”? I have consistently stated that he should be held accountable for his deeds. I’ve also consistently stated that he’s been over-charged in this case – and will likely be over-sentenced.

      I get it that you hate Roger Stone. What I don’t get is how that hatred makes it impossible for you to read and comprehend what I’ve written – and to instead, just make shit up.

      • Please watch ‘Get me Roger Stone’ on Netflix. See why he calls himself a Dirty Trickster. He does not deserve your sympathy.

        Whatever happened to good old Conservative ‘Personal Responsibility’? Did it go down the toilet with ‘Fiscal Responsibility’?

          • You seem nice.

            Or at least, very much like Frank’s idea of an intelligent and amusing commenter.

  • He deserves the consequences of his lawless behavior. Which has been consistent over the past 50 years. 50 years would not be amiss but I expect a 12-18 months at club fed at most.

  • How fitting that a guy who use to brag that he could get away with anything will go to jail for doing what he’s done most of his life and thought nothing of it. Lying. I’m sure the thing he’ll miss the most is watching other guys on top of his wife.

  • Don’t do the crime of you can’t do the time. Especially when you’re well informed what the “time” would be. He deserves the max.

    • Do you seriously believe that lying to a Congressional committee should result in a 50-year sentence? Then, what sort of sentences do you think the NXIVM defendants deserve?

      • No and that’s why he won’t get 50 years. He’ll get 15. It sends a message that you shouldn’t be an idiot later in life because you never know how much time you have left on this planet.

      • According to your own article, giving false statement is not the only alleged crime committed, The other crime was witness tempering… If he is found guilty on all counts yes he should be sentenced to the maximum amount of time…

  • This is a Ridiculous case! Brought before a Crooked Judge!
    People need to send a loud message to DC about these Garbage cases!

    • You can’t just say a judge is crooked without any proof. If she was so crooked, she would’ve jailed Roger Stone when he posted a pic of her with crosshairs! Give us a break. Go cash your check from the Mercers.

      • It’s vapid shitstains like you that swallow all the fake news that’s causing all the problems and division in our country. It wasn’t crosshairs more on that was fake news from the Democrats and the liberal media it was a Celtic cross the Celtic crosses the logo of that corporation that was sponsoring dip s***

  • The judge doesn’t have to give Stone the maximum sentence. He’s been around long enough to know that Washington, D.C. is toxic. He was a fool to lie, especially about things that are easy to prove.

    I do agree the jury should be aware of the practical impact of their decisions. In Texas, the jury decides the sentence in state court. This former Amway Diamond dirtbag: http://kellygrogers.blogspot.com/ could have been sentenced to the maximum 60 years, but the jury gave him 20, and the jury wasn’t allowed to know he would likely serve about a third of the sentence. If they had, they probably would have gone for the 60 years and he wouldn’t get out until he was in his 70s, if he survived that long.

    • I understand that the judge doesn’t have to give Stone the maximum sentence. But the maximum sentence in a case has a very significant influence on the defendant’s willingness to engage in plea deal negotiations.

      By overcharging defendants, federal prosecutors force many of them to accept plea deals, That’s one of the major reasons why only 2% of federal criminal cases go to trial.

      If Stone were facing a maximum 5-year sentence – which I think would be appropriate for the crimes he’s alleged to have committed – he could make a rational decision about whether to go to trial. Now, however, he may end up taking a 10 or 15 year plea deal just to avoid dying in federal prison.

      • So what do you think the Feds overcharged Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman with? What do you think the Feds overcharged Keith Raniere with? What do you think the Feds overcharged Bronfman with?

        • When did I suggest that Keith, Nancy, Clare, Allison or Lauren were over-charged? The only one of the NXIVM defendants that I think may have been over-charged was Kathy Russell.

          I will be eternally grateful that the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) stepped up – and began the process of destroying the NXIVM criminal enterprise. But there is much more that needs to be done – much of which has to take place in the Northern District of New York (NDNY).

          I’ll withhold comment on the NDNY’s efforts until we see what, if anything, takes place there in the next year or so.

          • As a former Republican. Roger Stone is a man that believes in the Constitution. I’m sure he doesn’t need you to post this article to try to influence the potential jury in his case. He knows he lied and I’m sure he’s ready to do his time if he lied. Sometimes an example needs to be set. Roger Stone is an example of one of the problems in the Republican party. It’s just a shame that the American people may never see the POTUS charged with his crimes or his family charged with their crimes.
            As a former Republican, I’d vote to do the right thing regardless of political party. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Speaking up to power is right. Mr Stone thought and continues to think he’s above the law.

          • You wrote, ” By overcharging defendants, federal prosecutors force many of them to accept plea deals.” Since 5 of the NXivm criminals accepted plea deals, if you are going to be consistent, seems your accusations with regards to Stone’s situation would apply to these 5 NXIVM crooks and even Raniere.

          • As I wrote, “many of them” – not “all of them”. Each case has to be looked at on its own merits to determine if prosecutors abused their discretion to gain an unfair advantage in a case.

            Let’s look at the two cases you mentioned. Do you think that what Roger Stone is alleged to have done deserves the same penalty as what the NXIVM defendants were alleged to have done? Except for Raniere, Stone’s maximum sentence for the crimes he is alleged to have committed is greater than the maximum sentence that any of the NXIVM defedants are facing.

          • K.R. Claviger
            August 9, 2019 at 2:00 pm wrote: “Do you think that what Roger Stone is alleged to have done deserves the same penalty as what the NXIVM defendants were alleged to have done?”

            That’s a different discussion. The question was about overcharging. You didn’t write that the Feds overcharge many defendants. You wrote that the Feds overcharge defendants so that many of them will accept plea deals. So I asked what Allison Mack et al were overcharged with. After all, didn’t they plead to lesser charges to avoid 20-40 year possible sentences if found guilty at trial?

          • Let me try to be clearer in my response. I believe that the Feds often overcharge defendants in criminal cases in order to encourage them to take plea deals rather than go to trial. In the NXIVM case, here are some examples where the prosecution could have cut back on the indictment: (a) Omit Count One: Racketeering Conspiracy – and just focus on Count 2: Racketeering; (b) Omit many of the predicate acts that were included to bolster the Count Two: Racketeering charge; and (c) Omit Counts 3,4,5 and 10 – all of which involve alleged crimes that took place in the Northern District. That, to me, woulod have a cleaner indictment in the NXIVM case.

  • It’s a sad chilling day in America….

    …When a criminal defendant has to worry about the political party affiliations “of 12 people who, given the demographics of Washington, DC, are much more likely to be registered Democrat”.

    The stock market and job market are excellent and gas prices are low….
    ……And the people of both parties are acting like it’s the end of days The apocalypse is upon us and it’s time for Armageddon…… God’s Super Bowl!!!!

    Maybe we need another world war to bring us all back together again!!!

    • They were under Obama as well and the Republicans were up in arms about his ruining American after it was obvious that gwb has caused a major screw up. Trump didn’t create the current job market increases or the stock market increase when he took office. He’s just capitalizing on them. The gas prices are higher now than they were in Obama’s term and the stock market is crashing now. Trump is toxic. Be honest.

      • Krclaviger:

        You are fighting a battle in a war that is all ready over and lost. We now live in the United States of Americas.

        Read my post and Tina Mintz post.

        I clearly stated “the people of both parties are acting like it’s the end of days.” My is actually bipartisan.

        Tina came back and attacked me despite my neutral stance and wanting everyone to get along.

        How do you think you will ever be able to reason with any of them?

        Good luck!

        You would have a better chance of parting the sea or digging a tunnel to China.

      • Tina my comment is about bipartisan and getting along with are fellow Americans.

        My point is things are going well. However, people are behaving like the country is falling apart at the seams.

        You did not fully read my comment. You edited to fit your narrative that everyone on this website is alt right.

        Most of everyone know identifies on Left or Right. It’s like all of you have a crazy disease.

        There is no middle ground.

  • He’s a man who knows far too much about far too many people.

    That is the only reason for the gag order.

  • Give up already – you’re not going to convince anyone who has been paying attention that Roger is some innocent victim. He’s not, and I’m sure Mueller has a ton of evidence to prove it.

    If Frank still talks to Roger, he should ask him why he hates a certain Ms. S. . ..Wouldn’t be because she knows so much about you, would it, Roger?

    • I have never asserted that Stone is “innocent” or a “victim”, What I have tried to point out is that he’s been over-charged – and that he’ll likely be over-sentenced.

      Maybe you don’t understand that plea bargaining starts with the “worst case scenario” – and works back from that. In this case, Stone’s “worst case scenario” is 50 years – which is way out of proportion to the crimes he’s alleged to have committed.

      If he were facing a maximum of 5 years – which is what I think would be fair – he would be able to make a rational decision as to whether to go to trial. Instead, he’s facing 50 years – and may end up taking a 10 or 15 year plea deal just to avoid dying in prison.

      • She presided over Manafort’s second trial, who also faced a potential life sentence and ended up with several years. But because she made it concurrent with his previous trial he ended up with an extra year. She is hardly a hanging judge.

        • Good Lord, how much can you get wrong in just one comment?

          Manafort got a 4-year sentence in his first trial. In his second trial, he was facing a maximum sentence of 10-years – and was sentenced to 3 1/2 years by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. But rather than make the second sentence run concurrently with the first, she tacked it on as a consecutive sentence – meaning that his total sentence is 7 1/2 years. BTW, Manafort is 69 years old.

          You can confirm all of these facts here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/politics/paul-manafort-sentencing.html

      • Manafort was extremely undersentenced. I wont hold my breath waiting for stone to get what he truly deserves

      • Krclaviger,

        Most laypeople after watching Rachel Maddow (Female Sean Hannity) on CNN
        do not understand,
        “he’s been over-charged – and that he’ll likely be over-sentenced”.

        Thanks to CNN and FOX people get to choose their own reality.

        So Krclaviger, do you enjoy living in an Orwellian Dystopian future?

        A wise man once said, “in an insane world the sane must act insane”.

        I don’t know what that means, but I feel like I’m living in someone else’s bad dream.

  • America can not build decent railroads but it can build a legal system that can RAILROAD innocent people with unpopular political views.
    Russia is now freer than America.

    • Innocent? That’s rich! The reason Mueller was unable to conclude collusion was because of the lies trumps lackeys told, Stone willingly played Scooter Libbey’s role and deserves the exact same sentence! Jury nullification for perjury and obstruction, trump will get that from the Senate, Stone, not so much

  • I’m old enough to remember Corsi when he was just your average, run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist, who was a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM hosted by George Norry (who destroyed the awesome legacy of Art Bell, but that is a story for another day). I don’t mean to make light of anything Mr. Stone is going through, but I can’t help but chuckle that Corsi was actually taken seriously by anyone, much less our Congress and DOJ.

    That being said, we have a real problem in this country in that LEOs can lie to us during their investigations, but we can’t lie to them. I get that we have our 5th amendment protection to remain silent, but from what I see in watching shows like Cops and LivePD, most Americans are too stupid to STFU. They feel pressured to talk to LEOs even when they don’t have to or shouldn’t.

    It’s Kafka-esque that Mr. Stone is facing such a long sentence for exercising his 1st amendment rights to free speech, even if that speech were lies. It’s a f@*ked system and it sucks. Jury nullification does seem like the last best hope, but such a long shot.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato


Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com