Roger Stone: Why I Withdrew the Appeal of My Unjust Conviction in the Mueller Witch Hunt

Roger Stone

By Roger Stone

On the strong advice of my attorneys and after giving the decision considerable thought, I have reluctantly decided to dismiss the appeal of what I believe to be a wrongful conviction in a trial tainted by judicial bias, egregious and blatant juror bias, and misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct.

Therefore, I directed my attorneys to withdraw my appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

I Could Never Get a Fair Hearing Before this Court of Appeals, Given its Political Agenda

First, I have come to the firm conclusion based on their previous actions in my case to date and based on their recent actions in the General Michael Flynn case, that it would be impossible for me to ever get a fair hearing from this appellate court for the vitally important, fundamental constitutional issues my case raises.

Although I believe the gag order issued in my case was patently unconstitutional and the free speech issues filed in a Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by one of the most prominent First Amendment lawyers in the country were fairly straightforward, the Court waited many weeks before granting the Government’s request for more time.

During this time, while the Washington Post (the dominant newspaper in the jurisdiction from which the jury was selected) as well as CNN, MSNBC and others attacked me with falsehoods, I was prohibited from responding.

Let there be no doubt the jury pool was seriously tainted and I sustained serious damage.

The Appeals Court, after an unreasonable delay, took no action but rather sent the decision back to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, as if there was any possibility that she would vacate her own order.

I also base this conclusion on other recent developments.

After I filed my appeal, I sought a simple sixty-day extension of time to report to prison based on the COVID-19 pandemic and the very real risk of death based on my age and health I faced at the facility to which I was designated to report.  That risk was demonstrated by undisputed medical evidence and reports of a rapidly burgeoning COVID-19 positive population at the facility.

The Justice Department had a uniform policy of consenting to such extensions in every other case, and judges in DC and around the country had ordered such extensions routinely for every other defendant who had yet to report.

Notwithstanding this undisputed, documented, imminent risk of death, the uniform DOJ policy applied to every other defendant, the government’s own statistics showing the rapid increase of COVID-19 positive tests at the facility, and recent decisions directly on point from other federal courts of appeal, as well as unequivocal evidence of deception and an outright lie by the prosecutors in my case in opposing my request after earlier agreeing to it, this Court of Appeals ignored the precedents in all circuits including DC., the current DOJ/BOP policies, the facts regarding my health and the proven danger at the facility I was assigned to and denied the request, knowing it was very likely sending me to my death.

This must be part of the special treatment the Democrats say I got.

That decision led the President to intervene, thankfully, and commute my sentence; but there is no way to know how many other defendants will be hurt if this lawless, politically motivated decision in my case is applied to anyone else.

My conclusion about this Court of Appeals is also supported by recent actions taken by the court in other cases that demonstrate that the court has become completely politicized and that the rule of law has become secondary to a political agenda.

In recent days, I have seen this court grant rehearing en banc in two cases involving officials associated with the Trump administration.  Judges on the court felt the need to vacate their previous order to Judge Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case and for the whole court to rehear decisions that panels of the court had made concerning the judge’s abuse of his power in General Flynn’s case as well as efforts by Congress to force former White House counsel McGann to testify.

This is truly extraordinary.

On the other hand, this same court just reversed a judge’s decision that Hillary Clinton must answer questions at a deposition about her very troubling conduct.  I could not come to any conclusion from these exceptional events other than that this court at present is motivated more by a political agenda than by adherence to the rule of law or concern for fundamental constitutional rights and so I decided to withdraw my appeal from its consideration.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a staunch Democrat, proves that politics prevail over the law in DC courts.

Winning My Appeal Would Mean a New Trial Before the Same Biased, Politically driven Judge

Secondly, my lawyers have made it clear to me that while the judge at my trial made a number of rulings on fundamentally important issues that cannot be reconciled with my constitutionally protected fair trial rights, the absolute best-case scenario that would result from winning my appeal would be to have the case sent back to this same judge who has proven over and over again in my case that she simply cannot and will not ever permit me to have a fair trial in her courtroom.

She denied my lawyers’ motion to disqualify her from my case, notwithstanding her outrageous conduct from the first day I appeared before her through the last day and notwithstanding her blatantly political, anti-Trump diatribe at my sentencing that bore little relationship to reality.

I cannot take the risk of having to go before her again for a new trial, just to be denied, once again, any ability to pursue a full and robust defense against the meritless charges I have faced and to give her a second chance to ensure my conviction for crimes I did not commit and perhaps impose an even stiffer sentence.

Consider just a few of the outrageous examples of what this judge did.

As was widely reported and “somehow” was captured by a CNN news crew already on the scene, I was arrested at my home in a pre-dawn raid by dozens of agents, including commando units, who descended on our house by land and sea in a manner otherwise reserved only for the leader of an international drug cartel.

This judge cut off all efforts at challenging this arrest or even at investigating who ordered it and why.

The judge also would not let me determine who illegally leaked a draft of the sealed indictment before it was unsealed later in the day.

Next, as cited previously, she entered the most Draconian gag order imaginable against my lawyers, my supporters, my family and me, prohibiting any of us at any time from in any way, shape, or form, in any forum whatsoever, from responding to inaccurate media reports regarding my case or the actions of ethically bankrupt Mueller team, its investigation, its agenda, or its methods.

Indeed, we were prohibited, and undoubtedly would be prohibited by her again, even after winning a new trial, from in any way challenging the Mueller team and its efforts to extort me and get me to falsely implicate the President in illegal conduct they knew never occurred.

Next, the trial judge granted the prosecution’s motion to prohibit me from raising in my defense misconduct by the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, the DOJ, or any Member of Congress in bringing the criminal case against me.

This is unprecedented and contradicts a long line of precedent from the highest court in the land recognizing the sanctity in our criminal justice system of permitting a defendant in a criminal case from pursuing a theory of defense.

The trial court’s ruling cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional right in any criminal case to challenge the integrity of the investigation and the investigating team.

The judge in my case simply ignored the many years of legal precedent on this point and would let no fundamental principle interfere with her decision to protect Mueller at all costs and to deny me a fair trial. Were such a ruling in place in the Flynn trial we would not now know of the withholding of exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s lawyer and documentation from the FBI which prove they knew Flynn violated no law and was politically targeted.

The trial judge’s commitment to deny me a fair trial and her political motivation were perhaps best on display with her astonishing political diatribe at my sentencing and with her reckless handling of the outrageous juror misconduct that only came to light after my trial, when we first learned that the jury foreperson had been attacking me by name on both Twitter and Facebook starting with my arrest and subsequently as well as attacking the President in 2019.

These social media posts were on a private setting during jury selection and during the trial and were deleted – actually the pages were shut down – after the trial. A request by my attorneys to subpoena this deleted material from the social media companies was denied by Judge Jackson.

Judge Berman saw nothing biased or wrong about the jury forewoman being virulently anti-Trump and anti-Stone. Tomeka Hart went to the extreme of publishing social media tirades against Stone and Trump prior to the trial then hid them from public view in order to sit on the jury and convict Stone, which was what Judge Berman wanted anyway, from before the trial and throughout the trial.

Indeed, where most federal judges would be outraged to learn that a juror had engaged in the kind of conduct she engaged in and then sought out public attention for, and would demand answers from the juror and impose consequences, the judge in my case reserved her ire exclusively for my lawyers and me for even daring to raise the issue and dismissed it all out of hand, ignoring her intended role as a neutral arbiter, charged with ensuring the integrity of the criminal process in her courtroom.

Despite the US Supreme Court’s decision that all defendants are entitled to an “impartial and indifferent” jury, Judge Jackson ruled that the Jury forewoman’s conduct did not constitute bias and denied me a new trial.

At sentencing, the judge announced that it did not at all matter that there was no evidence in my case about Russia or Russian “collusion” – the issue most Americans understand the Mueller Team’s mandate to be focused on.

Rather, she declared, I was prosecuted for seeking access to Hillary Clinton’s emails.  If that were the case, then what was Mueller doing prosecuting the case?  His law firm represented Hillary Clinton and the lead prosecutor in my case was Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer in that very case. That clear conflict of interest was ignored by the Judge.

Judge Jackson also said “there was nothing phony about the (Mueller) investigation,” something we know now from declassified documents to be untrue, but reflected the Judge’s personal political bias.

Next, she announced that I was convicted of “covering up for President Trump.“

This was not among the charges nor what I was convicted of. There was no such evidence to support such a conclusion. The judge went one step further and announced that because of my conduct, Congressman Nunes’s Committee had been thwarted in its Russian “collusion” investigation.  But immediately after the sentencing, Congressman Nunes announced through his spokesman that there was not one iota of truth to what the judge said in this regard.

Congressman Devin Nunes
Congressman Devin Nunes

He made clear that nothing I testified to before his Committee was at all material to or in any way impacted his Committee’s work.

How, then, one might ask, could I ever even have been prosecuted for supposedly lying to that Committee when the charge against me required as a necessary element, whether any statement at issue was material and any misstatement required intent.  My lawyers and I have asked that same question from the day the charges were brought through today and there is no legitimate answer.

I Could Not Justify Spending Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Pursuing a Futile Appeal

Given the risk and the chances to prevail in a politically corrupted system, I could not justify having to raise the hundreds of thousands more to pursue the appeal, given that I would never get a fair appellate hearing and that even if I were to win the appeal, the best-case scenario would be a repeat of a trial marked by the complete denial of my constitutional rights. All in front of a judge who has invested herself in my conviction in order to try to send a political message that supports her anti-Trump agenda, and who would perhaps impose an even more outrageous sentence on me the next time around if she were able to secure my conviction with the same tactics used in my first trial.

It is time for me to move on with my life with my family, friends, and supporters. I regret not going forward with the appeal to fully expose all that happened, with the hope that by doing so, I could help prevent it from happening to anyone else ever again; but I had to decide based on what is best for me and my family.

My attorneys have convinced me that the odds of victory were slim and the risk of being subjected to both an unfair appeal and perhaps an unfair second trial before the same judge was just too great a risk.

The threshold premises behind appealing the unjust result of an unjust judicial process are (1) that the injustice was anomalous and (2) the unjust result can be ameliorated if the process can be repeated, in a 2nd chance, with the unjust elements removed or otherwise remediated, before the same tribunal.

What an appeal does not and cannot remedy is an unjust result that is the product of intrinsic partisan bias and ulterior political motivations uniquely directed at a particular defendant based on their identity, for whatever reason, unless the remedy involves a new judge in a different venue. If this does not occur, (and it very rarely does), and the defendant must simply go through the same process with the same intrinsic biases before the same distempered judge, then even the most meritorious appeal is not only an exercise in futility but also a highly-risky gambit for which the only sure thing is that I would face the same jeopardy and costs, but with the essential problems unmitigated.

The political taint that exists in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, from the prosecutors to the judge to the jury pool, is so deep and abiding that the possibility of achieving a just result on the merits is as nonexistent as it was when this process played out the first time.

I am eternally grateful that the President saw the injustices in my case, and given my age and health, commuted my sentence, literally to save my life.  He never should have been put in the position of having to do so, but he was, because of the decisions by the trial judge and the Court of Appeals. Allegations by Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell that I “traded my silence regarding misconduct by the President for Presidential clemency “in my case is categorically false. Mueller’s dirty cops had $30M and three years to prove this false narrative and could find no evidence to support it at all while they did seek my co-operation to bear false witness against the President, an offer I declined.

Therefore, the rational choice, most protective of [my] rights and the welfare of my family, is to no longer subject myself to the dispositive authority of this court, even if that means forfeiting my right and desire to demonstrate the outrageous politically-motivated treatment and prosecutorial misconduct that suffused my case and my trial, making them a matter of permanent record, regardless of the outcome of an appeal.

About the author


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

“Must now wear them upside down so that they are attached at the collar instead of the forehead.”

Governor of Maine Orders Restaurant Staff to Wear COVID Visors Like Dog Cones

The Democratic Governor of Maine has ordered restaurant staff to wear anti-COVID visors upside down so they resemble dog cones in order to direct breath upwards.

Yes, really.

Democratic Governor Janet Mills’ decree states that “front-of-house staff in restaurants who choose to wear face shields must now wear them upside down so that they are attached at the collar instead of the forehead, so that their breath is directed up, not down,” reports Maine Public Radio.

Given that air conditioning units can facilitate the spread of coronavirus, Mills’ order looks like another ridiculous and pointless measure.

“As a symbol of submission, forcing us to obliterate our individuality by wearing masks was not explicit enough,” writes Dave Blount. “So they pushed the envelope even further. No one can miss the significance of making people wear dog cones.”

Dr Sherri Tenpenny
Gov Janet Mills says – servers must now wear face shields upside down so that their breath is directed up, not down. Yes she wants you to wear a dog cone… peak insanity. I wish this was a joke.. its real 😆 #facecovering #faceshield

comment image

3 years ago

Democrat, not Democratic. LOL

I wonder if [redacted] LOL

3 years ago

1958; your year of birth. Enjoy the time you have left. Let those of us with a stake in the game make decisions.

3 years ago

The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it. – Joseph Mengele.

It’s just a mask.
It’s just two weeks.
It’s just to keep from overwhelming the health care system.
It’s just ‘non-essential’ businesses.
Its just until we ‘flatten the curve’.
It’s just until more cases go down.
Its just to keep others from being scared.
It’s just a couple more weeks.
It’s just communion or singing.
You can still meet.
It’s just until we get a vaccine.
It’s just a few side effects.
It’s just a bracelet.
It’s just to let others know you’re safe to be around.
It’s just an app.
It’s just to let us know who you’ve been in contact with.
It’s just a few more months.
It’s just a YouTube video.
It’s just an email account.
It’s just to protect others from hate speech.
It’s just a few people.
It’s just a credit card company.
It’s just Google ads.
You can use cash.
It’s just a few places that don’t accept cash.
It’s just a little chip.
It’s just for medical information and paying for things.
It’s just so you can travel.
It’s just so you can get a driver’s license.
It’s just so you can vote.
It’s just a statue.
It’s just a building.
It’s just a street name.
It’s just a song.
It’s just a piece of paper.
It’s just a flag.
It’s just a piece of cloth.
It’s not just a piece of cloth.
It’s not just a mask.

Those who stand for nothing, fall for everything.

Paul Joseph Watson
1.83M subscribers
People are fleeing in droves.

New York City is a Sh*thole

3 years ago

Shadow, your posts are an [redacted] to Frank Parlato!!!!

3 years ago

Highlights of the Democratic National Dumpster Fire:

Mexican Lady
Mexican Lady
3 years ago

Nice article. I love how Frank Report has so much diversity in authors.

I would love to read more about the political techniques Stone uses and also how he connected to god during this time…

3 years ago
Reply to  Mexican Lady

Ever hear of [redacted] LOL

3 years ago

The Democratic Convention is the world’s biggest dumpster fire!

3 years ago

Feel free to fade into the background, Stone. LOL

3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

[redacted] Scott!!!!

Frank should let you [redacted]

3 years ago

Just a few questions, Mr. Stone.

Are you still listening to advice from Tyler Nixon ( the drug trafficking lawyer who had his licence suspended)?

Do you know why Tyler is interested in joining certain research pages? Pages that you are banned from….

3 years ago

Roger keep up the fight brother!!!!!

Three things:

1. At your age, who the fuck cares what liberals think. Fuck them,(liberals)!!!

2. Now that you have found Christ, sinning will be so much more fun.

3. The next time a radio/tv host is rude to you, tell them to suck your cock.

Don’t change!!!!!

3 years ago

Summary of Stone’s long post: “I know I was guilty and knew the Appeals judges wouldn’t swallow my BS.”

3 years ago
Reply to  LaLaLad

How about…..Stone didn’t want to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on bullshit!!!!

Do you have any idea how much his legal cost would’ve been, had he gone forward?

Would you mortgage your house over bullshit?

3 years ago
Reply to  NiceGuy

Yes, a waste of money, especially if: “I know I was guilty and knew the Appeals judges wouldn’t swallow my BS.”

3 years ago
Reply to  NiceGuy

Stone was going to spend other peoples’ money on this, just as he did with the original lawsuit, not his own, because he’s broke from the original lawsuit – he probably couldn’t get enough donations to pay his lawyers so he dropped the lawsuit, and this is the real reason for withdrawing the appeal. LOL

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.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

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 premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x