Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Roger Stone: Why I Told Sam Nunberg I Was Flying to London to Meet With Julian Assange

This is hilarious. I just hope it doesn't land Roger in the hoosegow. For Mueller, this is probably proof positive that Roger personally hacked into the John Podesta's computer while in a Nixon-style bathing suit on a Florida beach while drinking a martini and then personally handed Julian Assange the hacked emails after he scaled the side of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and climbed into Assange's window.

Roger emails me:
Here is my response....
Sam Nunberg's claims do not create evidence. There is no evidence that I participated in or have any knowledge of any collusion with the Russians to effect the 2016 elections. I had no advance notice of the content, source or timing of the Wikileaks publication of any material.

Nor did I receive any allegedly hacked material from any source and pass them on to Donald Trump or the Trump campaign. Nor did I know in advance that Wikileaks had obtained John Podesta's emails and would publish them nor did I predict that his e-mail would be published.

No communication from me to Sam Nunberg or anyone else will prove otherwise- in fact documents I submitted to the House Intelligence Committee prove that I did not collaborate with Wikileaks and that my testimony there was truthful.

Allegations that I met with Julian Assange in  London in 2016 , allegations apparently repeated by Sam Nunberg and apparently a second unidentified person are provably false.

My passport shows I never left the country  in 2015 or 2016 and surveillance camera's for a guy in a virtual gulag  at the Ecuadorian Embassy show he never left there and I never arrived there.
Now you have to understand  when you worked with Sam he would
call and text you over and over.  He  would call and text you 30 times a day. Sam said in a interview that he spoke to Steve [Bannon] 30 times a day.One major reporter said he called her eight times late one night. 

Nunberg told CNN "They want me to testify against Roger," Nunberg said. "They want me to say that Roger was going around telling people he was colluding with Julian Assange."  We can clear this up right now.

Late one Friday night when I was trying to get Sam off the phone. Sam asked if I had plans for the week-end- and I Said I was "flying to London to have dinner with Julian Assange. "- a joke and hung up. It was jocular and of course provably false via passport record and security video.

Sam called me to warn me that Mueller was out to get me three times then told me to  admit I told 58 people that I had gone to London...which of course is not true- I told ONE person....who was too intense to figure out it was a joke. 
Now as to the second person baring false witness against me I am asked to answer a faceless charge and an e-mail I have not seen allegedly making claims I don't recall.

Sam is a talented researcher and writer and a relentless gossip and yenta. In this case he has done me a disservice. 

The claim that I got documents from Wikileaks and gave them to Donald Trump or anyone in the Trump Camp is as false as the certainty that they were hacked by Russians or anyone else.
These are lies created by Democrats and some in the  media  that will be dispelled by the investigation.
y testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was 100 % truthful and documents I submitted to them show I did not collaborate with Wikileaks.

As far as the so-called "Back Channel - I addressed it here- the claim by Mother Jones that Credico's confirmation that Wikileaks would publish non-specific Clinton material predates his meeting and first interview with Assange is irrelevant -Credico was well aquainted with members of his legal team-

While we're at it let's dispense with Guccifer 2.0 since Chuck Todd revived this chestnut late week. My exchange with someone claiming to be a hacker has been fully released publicly. It is innocuous, banal and based on the timing, content and context certainly doesn't constitute collusion. 

No collusion. No hacked e-mail.No discussion of the allegedly hacked e-mail with Donald Trump before, during or after the campaign.
The only reason any of this would matter is if Assange is a Russian asset. I reject this claim by our politicized and discredited Intelligence services. Nonetheless , because I received no allegedly hacked e-mails - or anything else - from Wikileaks and passed nothing on to Donald Trump it's immaterial.
-Robert Wenzel 


  1. Yes, but he and Trump colluded to get somewhere in a hurry... you might say they were rushin'... Russian collusion!

    1. "He who would pun would pick a pocket.": Stephen Maturin