The New York Times is using guilt by association to imply that I was somehow involved in or had advanced knowledge of the senseless riot at the US Capitol on January 6. It’s a classic hit piece that takes journalistic sleights of hand to a new low. Legally speaking, it’s a high-tech but transparent plate of steaming horseshit.
I have acknowledged using a voluntary security detail provided by a group called the Oath Keepers. The New York Times now claims that members of my voluntary security detail were among those inside the Capitol.
The Times claims that six Oath Keepers they identify as guarding me at the Willard Hotel earlier on January 6 were also inside the Capitol later that day. The Times also claims that these six met up with the three other Oath Keepers who were subsequently charged with involvement in the Capitol breach.
The Times asserts in its headline, ‘First They Guarded Roger Stone. Then They Joined the Capitol Attack.’ This connection is immaterial unless I was personally involved in any wrongdoing that occurred that day. But the Times offers no evidence of any kind that I had foreknowledge of what certain individuals might have intended to do. If the Times have evidence that I did, why didn’t they print it?
High standards used to be the hallmark of the New York Times. Things are very different today. So here, let me ‘fact-check’ the story myself.
None of the three Oath Keepers — Donovan Crowl, Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell — who have been actually charged with conspiracy were among those who guarded me outside the Willard Hotel. Nor were they photographed with me at the Willard Hotel or the events I participated in on January 5.
At this point, public records show no charges filed or arrests of anyone going by the names of the men outside my hotel on the morning of January 6. CNN reported then that I had been seen ‘leaving’ the hotel, but in fact I stepped outside in the morning, then remained on the hotel premises until leaving for Dulles airport at around 6 p.m. on January 6.
Tellingly, the Times fails to link to my refutation of any and all connection to the January 6 protest despite the fact I have been referenced twice and quoted. I told the paper that any suggestion of a link between me and illegal riot is categorically false. But they went ahead and suggested it anyway.
This bogus Times story follows on from similarly thin and transparent hit pieces by ABC and CNN. I’m aware of no illegal or improper conduct by any of the men who guarded me as far as the riot at the Capitol is concerned. It is interesting that one of the wives of the Oath Keepers confirms that her husband was shouting outside the Capitol, but denies her husband was among those who did breach the Capitol.
Needless to say, if we do learn that individual members of the Oath Keepers participated in illegal acts on January 6, they should be prosecuted. If evidence exists of a broader conspiracy within the Oath Keepers, that too should be prosecuted. But there is no evidence whatsoever of me having any involvement or foreknowledge of this politically stupid and illegal act.
That members of the Oath Keepers voluntarily provided security to me in Washington, DC is proof of nothing. It’s unfortunate that my family and I require bodyguards. Fourteen people were stabbed after peaceful pro-Trump events in Washington last March, and more were stabbed after similar events in December. In fact, my wife was attacked by a leftist outside our home recently. She is fine, thank you.
This is exactly the sort of journalism by insinuation that was employed almost endlessly to assert that I was an agent of the Russian state and a collaborator of Wikileaks and Julian Assange — while I was unconstitutionally gagged for 16 months by a court order. It was all false.
‘Mr Stone was the Trump campaign’s principal intermediary to WikiLeaks,’ the New York Times claimed on June 19, 2020 in a story by Sharon LaFraniere. That was false — based entirely on now-discredited testimony from Steve Bannon, who directly contradicted his sworn testimony at my trial with his sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
The New York Post asked George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley to review the case. He said: ‘There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry. [Bannon] has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance.’
The Times, desperate as they are to make me out to be a villain, has not sought to correct its errors. All the news that’s fit to print? Give me a break.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.