Longtime President Donald Trump political adviser Roger Stone is not taking The New York Times‘ smears on him sitting down. Instead, he is revealing how the Upper East Side’s favorite fake news source is simply dragging on with their Russia collusion narrative, even after every right-thinking observer has come to the conclusion that there was no Russian collusion. (READ: Roger Stone Releases Texts: These Texts Prove That I Am Innocent).
Stone began this email exchange with Sharon LaFraniere, who teamed with Maggie Haberman to write the Times story about how conservative writer Jerome Corsi was talking to Mueller’s team about a possible plea deal for his testimony. Of course, Corsi later rejected the Mueller plea deal and literally said that he would rather die in prison than lie about the President of the United States to serve politically-motivated investigators.
During the conversation, political strategist Grant Smith is also tagged in.
Stone to LaFraniere:
“I would like to speak with you regarding your story that mentions me today . Please be so kind as to call me at [Redacted] Thank You
LaFraniere to Stone:
Sorry I only just now saw this. Call me whenever you are free?
I’m at [Redacted].
Stone to LaFraniere:
“I am babysitting my 2 year old godson at the moment so not free to talk.
I have maintained a respectful, professional and cordial relationship with many of your colleagues at the times and I hope that can be the case here
There are however some issues with your story I would ask that you address.
Here are some notes I typed earlier this morning……..
“Although Mr. Corsi apparently had no direct connection to the Trump campaign, he was in touch with Mr. Stone, a former campaign adviser who communicated with senior campaign officials through the election. Mr. Stone claimed during the campaign that he had a back channel to WikiLeaks, but now says he was merely bluffing to unsettle Mrs. Clinton’s team.” I never said anywhere I was “bluffing” about my source . I said I had a tipster who told me of the significance of the Wikileaks disclosures that Julian Assange himself announced he had and would publish on CNN in June of 2016 and that they would be released in October .I did name my back-channnel as New York Talk show host Randy Credico and when I released extensive text exchanges proving this last week the New York Times reported ……..nothing. Now you imply Corsi was that back-channel. Dishonest
“Mr. Stone also communicated with Guccifer 2.0, the online persona used by one or more Russian intelligence operatives who hacked the Democratic systems. Never mind that the allegation that Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC is a charge unproven in a court of law and vigorously disputed by numerous counterintelligence IT experts ( see the Nation magazine) You, I assume know but fail to note that my now famous 24 word exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0, took place AFTER Wikileaks has already published the allegedly hacked DNC material and, thus, collusion in the acquisition of the allegedly hacked material would be chronologically impossible. Then there is the actual content of the exchange which any reasonable person can read since I released it. It is banal and certainly provides no evidence of collaboration, collusion or coordination. You point out that this communication was cited in the DOJ indictment of 12 GRU agents but fails to mention Rod Rosenstein’s comments to numerous press outlets at the time
“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.”………Rod Rosenstein
“Rosenstein also highlighted that Friday’s indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in the Russian operation.”…………..CNBC
Federal investigators have questioned a host of Mr. Stone’s associates about his relationship with WikiLeaks. Three senior Trump campaign officials have told them that Mr. Stone created the impression that he was a conduit of information from WikiLeaks, according to people familiar with the inquiry. One of them said Mr. Stone not only seemed to predict WikiLeaks’ actions, but also took credit afterward for disclosures that damaged Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The Times must either produce the message in which I demand “credit” for said disclosures or stop reporting this. The word of Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie is both hearsay and not credible- ask your colleague Maggie Haberman who actually covered the campaign if they have motive or finds them credible. I have never claimed any such thing.
Among other issues, investigators have been asking about an Aug. 21, 2016, Twitter message in which Mr. Stone predicted that John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, would soon fac“time in the barrel.” I never said it would be “his” time in the barrel. I said it would be “THE Podesta’s time in the barrel (time under press scrutiny) in my now iconic tweet. In your last story you omitted the word the because it clearly refers to TWO people. Now you add the word “his” to leave the false impression my tweet refers to John Podesta’s e-mails when it refers to the publicly available information regarding both the Podesta brothers lucrative work for the oligarchs around Putin .
Lastly. I specifically told your colleague that if Dr. Corsi knew that John Podesta‘s emails had been obtained by anyone and would be published he never shared this information with me nor did he give me any such documents. This is not reflected in your story.
Please let me know your intentions regarding these items.
Lafraniere to Stone:
“Dear Roger – can we schedule a call for any time after 12 today? Thanks Sharon
Sharon LaFraniere The New York Times [Redacted]”
Stone to Lafraniere and Grant:
“Second time they have done this–
Grant suggest you send them the HOUSE letter”
Lafraniere to Grant and Stone
Whatever it is, please do send it. Since Roger does not call me back, I need to rely on you to understand his complaints with my coverage.
Stone to Lafraniere and Grant:
In actuality , your ONE message asking me to a conference call with your editors went to my spam file.
Given the specificity and detail of my previous email , I cannot comprehend why you don’t understand my complaint.
You had misreported the wording of my August 21 Tweet regarding THE Podesta by omitting the word “The”. “The” Podesta’s” clearly refers to TWO people , John and Tony Podesta. Omitting the word “the” leaves a purposeful implication that the tweet refers to John Podesta’s allegedly stolen email. Adding insult to injury you said the Tweet referred to “his” email, again implying ,incorrectly to John Podesta’s email. Despite my bringing this to your attention in a constructive manner you misreported the wording again today.
The New York Post published Peter Sweitzer’s story “ From Russia with Money” on July 31, 2016. Much of this material regarding the Podesta brothers lucrative Russian business dealings ( has, Uranium, banking) had been published in the Panama papers in April of 2016.
Breitbart reported on August 14 that Tony Podesta was lobbying for the same Ukrainian Political party as Paul Manafort and Politico reported that the Podesta brothers had retained counsel regarding this client on August 19.
One did not need John Podesta’s email to know they had lucrative business dealings in Ukraine and Russia. I asked Jerry Corsi for a round up memo for the purpose of disseminating to reporters- which I did although the was no interest.
Please correct your reporting to reflect the accurate wording of my now iconic August tweet. Grant Smith will send you the certified tweet and the letter of correction my attorney’s sent the House Intelligence Committee Who, along with the New York Times and CNN made this same error.
Email exchange ends
It is pretty clear that Roger Stone is in the right, and the New York Times is fake news.
Here is Roger Stone explaining why he is innocent of any Russian collusion and how he would never lie about President Trump:
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.