Roger Stone Asserts Fifth Amendment Rights in Jan 6 Probe, Citing Congressional Partisanship and a History of Leaks and Lies

by Jacob Engles

Roger Stone Asserts Fifth Amendment Rights in Jan 6 Probe, Citing Congressional Partisanship and a History of Leaks and Lies

Longtime political operative and Trump advisor Roger Stone has formally notified the secretive (and highly partisan) January 6th Committee of the United States House of Representatives that he will not comply with their document request or demands for a deposition asserting his Fifth Amendment Rights, according to a two-page letter Stone’s lawyer sent to the Committee which was obtained by The Gateway Pundit. 

Stone has said repeatedly that he was not on The Ellipse, did not march to the Capitol and was not present at the Capitol on January 6th. Various fake news outlets have attempted to utilize the technique of “Guilt by Association” in order to falsely connect Stone to the illegal events of January 6th.  In fact, Reuters reported in August that senior FBI officials had investigated and found no evidence that Roger Stone was involved in the January 6th incidents at the Capitol.

Stone has also objected to broad attempts by Democrats and those in the media to falsely claim that Stone’s appearances at two legally-permitted events on January 5th somehow led to the illegal actions of a handful on January 6th. “They are trying to criminalize perfectly legal and constitutionally protected political activity,” Stone has said. “On January 5th, I exercised my right to Free Speech, Free Assembly in petitioning the government for redress of grievances,” Stone said.

In the letter, signed by longtime Stone attorney Grant Smith, he highlights his clients constitutionally protected right to assert the Fifth Amendment, citing first Watkins v. United States (1957) to remind them of the longstanding legal precedent regarding the fifth amendment, especially as it relates to testimonies before congress. Additionally, Smith cites an additional case, Ohio vs. Reiner (2001).

When it comes to Ohio v. Reiner, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment “protects innocent men who might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances”.

Here, given the current leaks from the Select Committee regarding Mr. Stone surfacing in press, in Congress, and, according to news reports, within the Department of Justices’ offices, Mr. Stone certainly has a reasonable basis to protect himself from the “ambiguous circumstances” that clearly exist and many have embraced.

The letter slammed the document request of the January 6th Committee as a “fishing expedition” that is overbroad and overreaching, including requests that are “imprecise” and “undefined.” Smith argues that such requests, given the fact that the press has stated that Stone is “under investigation” by the FBI and DOJ, would amount to a “testimonial act,” which would defeat the purpose Mr. Stone asserted based on his constitutionally protected Fifth Amendment rights.

The letter goes on to discuss the January 6th Committee’s chief purpose, which includes the investigation of the events leading up to January 6th, as a false premise that legally protected free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances somehow lead to the illegal acts of January 6th.

The letter closes by reminding the January 6th Committee Chairman Bernie Thompson of Mr. Stone’s previous interaction with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), where Stone testified before in 2017.

In the weeks, months, and years following his appearance, Mr. Stone was subjected to a torrent of leaks regarding his classified testimony, in violation of House Rules.

At this point, a reference is made to Congressman Adam Schiff, who is a member of the HPSCI and the January 6th Committee, for “relentlessly misinterpreting” the evidence regarding Mr. Stone, including “wholly unsubstantiated allegations regarding alleged Russian collusion,” that not even the Mueller team could substantiate. Stone specifically claims that Schiff repeatedly violated both House Rules and the law by leaking details of Stone’s testimony which were classified. Schiff openly misrepresented Stone’s testimony in various media appearances, also a flagrant violation of House Rules.

Stone called out Schiff’s illegal leaks in a 2020 op-ed for The Daily Caller. 

Stone’s attorney also calls out January 6th Committee Chairman Bernie Thompson for his rabid anti-Trump bias, citing a lawsuit that Thompson and other far-left Trump-hating Democrats filed over January 6th before the creation of the committee.

Rightfully so, Stone’s legal team also has concerns over the committee membership, which only includes two Republicans, notable Trump-hating lunatics Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. House Speaker Pelosi famously denied any Republican that was pro-Trump a seat on the committee.

Stone told this Gateway Pundit journalist.

Any claim, assertion, or accusation that I knew about or was involved in any way in the illegal acts of January 6th are categorically false. I have asserted my Fifth Amendment right and the content of my letter to the January 6th Committee speaks for itself. The attempt by the January 6th Committee to criminalize and investigate perfectly legal (constitutionally protected) political activity that preceded the January 6th incidents is just another witch-hunt.”