IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ROGER JASON STONE, JR.,

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*******

CRIMINAL NO.

Grand Jury Original

18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 1512, 2

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges:

Introduction

1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer

systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company

(“Company 1”) to identify the extent of the intrusions. 

2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it

had been hacked by Russian government actors. 

3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization

(“Organization 1”), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons,

entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC

and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary

Clinton (“Clinton Campaign”). 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 24
2

a. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released documents stolen from the

DNC. 

b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016,

Organization 1 released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been

stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling

over 50,000 stolen documents. 

4. ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S.

politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign

of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular

contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.

5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about

Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton

Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future

releases by Organization 1.

6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to

have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made

a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his

communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual

friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members

of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

7. After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

(“SSCI”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened or announced their respective

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 24
3

investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which included

investigating STONE’s claims of contact with Organization 1. 

8. In response, STONE took steps to obstruct these investigations. Among other steps to

obstruct the investigations, STONE:

a. Made multiple false statements to HPSCI about his interactions regarding

Organization 1, and falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of

these interactions; and

b. Attempted to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to and withhold

pertinent information from the investigations.

Other Relevant Individuals

9. Person 1 was a political commentator who worked with an online media publication during

the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Person 1 spoke regularly with STONE throughout the

campaign, including about the release of stolen documents by Organization 1. 

10. Person 2 was a radio host who had known STONE for more than a decade. In testimony

before HPSCI on or about September 26, 2017, STONE described Person 2 (without naming him)

as an “intermediary,” “go-between,” and “mutual friend” to the head of Organization 1. In a

follow-up letter to HPSCI dated October 13, 2017, STONE identified Person 2 by name and

claimed Person 2 was the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of

Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’”

Background

STONE’s Communications About Organization 1 During the Campaign

11. By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials

that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 24
4

damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times

at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.

12. After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump

Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other

damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter

told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

13. STONE also corresponded with associates about contacting Organization 1 in order to

obtain additional emails damaging to the Clinton Campaign. 

a. On or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent an email to Person 1 with the subject line,

“Get to [the head of Organization 1].” The body of the message read, “Get to [the

head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending

[Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.” On or about the

same day, Person 1 forwarded STONE’s email to an associate who lived in the

United Kingdom and was a supporter of the Trump Campaign.

b. On or about July 31, 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 with the subject line, “Call

me MON.” The body of the email read in part that Person 1’s associate in the

United Kingdom “should see [the head of Organization 1].” 

c. On or about August 2, 2016, Person 1 emailed STONE. Person 1 wrote that he was

currently in Europe and planned to return in or around mid-August. Person 1 stated

in part, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m

back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.” The phrase “friend in

embassy” referred to the head of Organization 1. Person 1 added in the same email,

“Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 24
5

enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are

now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke –

neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for

Foundation debacle.” 

14. Starting in early August 2016, after receiving the August 2, 2016 email from Person 1,

STONE made repeated statements about information he claimed to have learned from the head of

Organization 1. 

a. On or about August 8, 2016, STONE attended a public event at which he stated, “I

actually have communicated with [the head of Organization 1]. I believe the next

tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling

what the October surprise may be.” 

b. On or about August 12, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that he was “in

communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to discuss

what I have.” 

c. On or about August 16, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that “it became

known on this program that I have had some back-channel communication with

[Organization 1] and [the head of Organization 1].” In a second interview on or

about the same day, STONE stated that he “communicated with [the head of

Organization 1]” and that they had a “mutual acquaintance who is a fine

gentleman.”

d. On or about August 18, 2016, STONE stated during a television interview that he

had communicated with the head of Organization 1 through an “intermediary,

somebody who is a mutual friend.” 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 5 of 24
6

e. On or about August 23, 2016, Person 2 asked STONE during a radio interview,

“You’ve been in touch indirectly with [the head of Organization 1]. . . . Can you

give us any kind of insight? Is there an October surprise happening?” STONE

responded, “Well, first of all, I don’t want to intimate in any way that I control or

have influence with [the head of Organization 1] because I do not. . . . We have a

mutual friend, somebody we both trust and therefore I am a recipient of pretty good

information.”

15. Beginning on or about August 19, 2016, STONE exchanged written communications,

including by text message and email, with Person 2 about Organization 1 and what the head of

Organization 1 planned to do. 

a. On or about August 19, 2016, Person 2 sent a text message to STONE that read in

part, “I’m going to have [the head of Organization 1] on my show next Thursday.” 

On or about August 21, 2016, Person 2 sent another text message to STONE,

writing in part, “I have [the head of Organization 1] on Thursday so I’m completely

tied up on that day.” 

b. On or about August 25, 2016, the head of Organization 1 was a guest on Person 2’s

radio show for the first time. On or about August 26, 2016, Person 2 sent a text

message to STONE that stated, “[the head of Organization 1] talk[ed] about you

last night.” STONE asked what the head of Organization 1 said, to which Person 2

responded, “He didn’t say anything bad we were talking about how the Press is

trying to make it look like you and he are in cahoots.”

c. On or about August 27, 2016, Person 2 sent text messages to STONE that said, “We

are working on a [head of Organization 1] radio show,” and that he (Person 2) was

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 6 of 24
7

“in charge” of the project. In a text message sent later that day, Person 2 added,

“[The head of Organization 1] has kryptonite on Hillary.”

d. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said,

“I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2

responded “Ok,” and added in a later text message, “[j]ust remember do not name

me as your connection to [the head of Organization 1] you had one before that you

referred to.”

i. On or about the same day, September 18, 2016, STONE emailed

Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton

related to her service as Secretary of State. STONE stated, “Please

ask [the head of Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from

August 10 to August 30—particularly on August 20, 2011 that

mention [the subject of the article] or confirm this narrative.” 

ii. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again,

writing, “Pass my message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” 

Person 2 responded, “I did.” On or about September 20, 2016,

Person 2 forwarded the request to a friend who was an attorney with

the ability to contact the head of Organization 1. Person 2 blindcopied STONE on the forwarded email.

e. On or about September 30, 2016, Person 2 sent STONE via text message a

photograph of Person 2 standing outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where

the head of Organization 1 was located. 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 7 of 24
8

f. On or about October 1, 2016, which was a Saturday, Person 2 sent STONE text

messages that stated, “big news Wednesday . . . now pretend u don’t know me . . .

Hillary’s campaign will die this week.” In the days preceding these messages, the

press had reported that the head of Organization 1 planned to make a public

announcement on or about Tuesday, October 4, 2016, which was reported to be the

ten-year anniversary of the founding of Organization 1.

g. On or about October 2, 2016, STONE emailed Person 2, with the subject line

“WTF?,” a link to an article reporting that Organization 1 was canceling its “highly

anticipated Tuesday announcement due to security concerns.” Person 2 responded

to STONE, “head fake.”

h. On or about the same day, October 2, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 and asked,

“Did [the head of Organization 1] back off.” On or about October 3, 2016, Person

2 initially responded, “I can’t tal[k] about it.” After further exchanges with

STONE, Person 2 said, “I think it[’]s on for tomorrow.” Person 2 added later that

day, “Off the Record Hillary and her people are doing a full-court press they [sic]

keep [the head of Organization 1] from making the next dump . . . That’s all I can

tell you on this line . . . Please leave my name out of it.” 

16. In or around October 2016, STONE made statements about Organization 1’s future

releases, including statements similar to those that Person 2 made to him. For example:

a. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump

Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.” 

b. Also on or about October 3, 2016, STONE received an email from a reporter who

had connections to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official that asked, “[the head

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 8 of 24
9

of Organization 1] – what’s he got? Hope it’s good.” STONE responded in part,

“It is. I’d tell [the high-ranking Trump Campaign official] but he doesn’t call me

back.”

c. On or about October 4, 2016, the head of Organization 1 held a press conference

but did not release any new materials pertaining to the Clinton Campaign. Shortly

afterwards, STONE received an email from the high-ranking Trump Campaign

official asking about the status of future releases by Organization 1. STONE

answered that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but that

Organization 1 would release “a load every week going forward.” 

d. Later that day, on or about October 4, 2016, the supporter involved with the Trump

Campaign asked STONE via text message if he had “hear[d] anymore from

London.” STONE replied, “Yes - want to talk on a secure line - got Whatsapp?” 

STONE subsequently told the supporter that more material would be released and

that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.

17. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails stolen from the

Clinton Campaign chairman. Shortly after Organization 1’s release, an associate of the highranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read “well done.” In

subsequent conversations with senior Trump Campaign officials, STONE claimed credit for

having correctly predicted the October 7, 2016 release.

The Investigations

18. In or around 2017, government officials publicly disclosed investigations into Russian

interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links to individuals associated with

the campaigns. 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 9 of 24
10

a. On or about January 13, 2017, the chairman and vice chairman of SSCI announced

the committee would conduct an inquiry that would investigate, among other

things, any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated

with political campaigns, as well as Russian cyber activity and other “active

measures” directed against the United States in connection with the 2016 election. 

b. On or about January 25, 2017, the chairman and ranking member of HPSCI

announced that HPSCI had been conducting an inquiry similar to SSCI’s. 

c. On or about March 20, 2017, the then-director of the FBI testified at a HPSCI

hearing and publicly disclosed that the FBI was investigating Russian interference

in the 2016 election and possible links and coordination between the Trump

Campaign and the Russian government. 

d. By in or around August 2017, news reports stated that a federal grand jury had

opened an investigation into matters relating to Russian government efforts to

interfere in the 2016 election, including possible links and coordination between

the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. 

STONE’s False Testimony to HPSCI

19. In or around May 2017, HPSCI sent a letter requesting that STONE voluntarily appear

before the committee and produce:

Any documents, records, electronically stored information

including e-mail, communication, recordings, data and tangible

things (including, but not limited to, graphs, charts, photographs,

images and other documents) regardless of form, other than those

widely available (e.g., newspaper articles) that reasonably could

lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publiclyannounced parameters.

On or about May 22, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI stating that “Mr.

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 10 of 24
11

Stone has no documents, records, or electronically stored information, regardless of form, other

than those widely available that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the

investigation’s publicly-announced parameters.”

20. On or about September 26, 2017, STONE testified before HPSCI in Washington, D.C. as

part of the committee’s ongoing investigation. In his opening statement, STONE stated, “These

hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the

hacking of the DNC and [the Clinton Campaign chairman] and the transfer of that information to

[Organization 1].” STONE further stated that “[m]embers of this Committee” had made certain

“assertions against me which must be rebutted here today,” which included “[t]he charge that I

knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman[’s] email, [and]

that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the [Organization 1] disclosures

regarding Hillary Clinton.”

21. In the course of his HPSCI testimony, STONE made deliberately false and misleading

statements to the committee concerning, among other things, his possession of documents

pertinent to HPSCI’s investigation; the source for his early August 2016 statements about

Organization 1; requests he made for information from the head of Organization 1; his

communications with his identified intermediary; and his communications with the Trump

Campaign about Organization 1.

STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Possession of Documents Pertinent to

HPSCI’s Investigation

22. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “So you have no emails to anyone

concerning the allegations of hacked documents . . . or any discussions you have had with third

parties about [the head of Organization 1]? You have no emails, no texts, no documents

whatsoever, any kind of that nature?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “That is correct. 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 11 of 24
12

Not to my knowledge.”

23. In truth and in fact, STONE had sent and received numerous emails and text messages

during the 2016 campaign in which he discussed Organization 1, its head, and its possession of

hacked emails. At the time of his false testimony, STONE was still in possession of many of these

emails and text messages, including:

a. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 25, 2016 that read in part,

“Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get

the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”; 

b. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 31, 2016 that said an associate

of Person 1 “should see [the head of Organization 1].”; 

c. The email from Person 1 to STONE on or about August 2, 2016 that stated in part, 

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd

in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”;

d. Dozens of text messages and emails, beginning on or about August 19, 2016 and

continuing through the election, between STONE and Person 2 in which they

discussed Organization 1 and the head of Organization 1; 

e. The email from STONE on or about October 3, 2016 to the supporter involved with

the Trump Campaign, which read in part, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. 

The payload is still coming.”; and 

f. The emails on or about October 4, 2016 between STONE and the high-ranking

member of the Trump Campaign, including STONE’s statement that Organization

1 would release “a load every week going forward.”

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 12 of 24
13

24. By falsely claiming that he had no emails or text messages in his possession that referred

to the head of Organization 1, STONE avoided providing a basis for HPSCI to subpoena records

in his possession that could have shown that other aspects of his testimony were false and

misleading. 

STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Early August 2016 Statements

25. During his HPSCI testimony on or about September 26, 2017, STONE was asked to

explain hisstatements in early August 2016 about being in contact with the head of Organization 1. 

STONE was specifically asked about his statement on or about August 8, 2016 that “I’ve actually

communicated with [the head of Organization 1],” as well as his statement on or about August 12,

2016 that he was “in communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to

discuss what I have.” 

26. STONE responded that his public references to having a means of contacting Organization

1 referred exclusively to his contact with a journalist, who STONE described as a “go-between, as

an intermediary, as a mutual friend” of the head of Organization 1. STONE stated that he asked

this individual, his intermediary, “to confirm what [the head of Organization 1] ha[d] tweeted,

himself, on July 21st, that he ha[d] the Clinton emails and that he [would] publish them.” STONE

further stated that the intermediary “was someone I knew had interviewed [the head of

Organization 1]. And I merely wanted confirmation of what he had tweeted on the 21st.” STONE

declined to tell HPSCI the name of this “intermediary” but provided a description in his testimony

that was consistent with Person 2.

27. On or about October 13, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI that

identified Person 2 by name as the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of

Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’”

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 13 of 24
14

28. STONE’s explanation of his August 2016 statements about communicating with the head

of Organization 1 was false and misleading. In truth and in fact, the first time Person 2 interviewed

the head of Organization 1 was on or about August 25, 2016, after STONE made his August 8 and

August 12, 2016 public statements. Similarly, at the time STONE made his August 2016

statements, STONE had directed Person 1—not Person 2—to contact the head of Organization 1. 

And Person 1—not Person 2—had told STONE in advance of STONE’s August 8 and August 12,

2016 public statements that “[w]ord is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” including one in

October. At no time did STONE identify Person 1 to HPSCI as another individual STONE

contacted to serve as a “go-between,” “intermediary,” or other source of information from

Organization 1. STONE also never disclosed his exchanges with Person 1 when answering

HPSCI’s questioning about STONE’s August 8 and August 12, 2016 statements.

STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Requests He Made for Information from the

Head of Organization 1

29. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “[W]hat was the extent of the

communication with [the intermediary]?” STONE replied, “I asked him to confirm . . . that the

tweet of [the head of Organization 1] of the 21st was accurate, that they did in fact have . . . Hillary

Clinton emails and that they would release them.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the

intermediary] to communicate anything else to [the head of Organization 1]?” STONE falsely and

misleadingly responded, “I did not.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the intermediary] to

do anything on your own behalf?” STONE falsely and misleadingly responded, “I did not.” 

30. In truth and in fact, STONE directed both Person 1 and Person 2 to pass on requests to the

head of Organization 1 for documents that STONE believed would be damaging to the Clinton

Campaign. For example:

a. As described above, on or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent Person 1 an email that

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 14 of 24
15

read, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and

get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”

b. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said,

“I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1],” and then

emailed Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton related

to her service as Secretary of State. STONE added, “Please ask [the head of

Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30—

particularly on August 20, 2011 that mention [the subject of the article] or confirm

this narrative.”

c. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again, writing “Pass my

message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded, “I did,” and the

next day Person 2, on an email blind-copied to STONE, forwarded the request to

an attorney who had the ability to contact the head of Organization 1.

STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with His Identified

Intermediary

31. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked repeatedly about his communications

with the person he identified as his intermediary. STONE falsely and misleadingly stated that he

had never communicated with his intermediary in writing in any way. During one exchange,

STONE falsely and misleadingly claimed only to have spoken with the intermediary

telephonically:

Q: [H]ow did you communicate with the intermediary? 

A: Over the phone. 

Q: And did you have any other means of communicating with

the intermediary?

A: No.

Q: No text messages, no – none of the list, right?

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 15 of 24
16

A: No.

Later during his testimony, STONE again falsely denied ever communicating with his

intermediary in writing:

Q: So you never communicated with your intermediary in

writing in any way?

A: No.

Q: Never emailed him or texted him?

A: He’s not an email guy.

Q: So all your conversations with him were in person or over

the phone.

A: Correct.

32. In truth and in fact, as described above, STONE and Person 2 (who STONE identified to

HPSCI as his intermediary) engaged in frequent written communication by email and text

message. STONE also engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message

with Person 1, who also provided STONE with information regarding Organization 1. 

33. Written communications between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and Person 2

continued through STONE’s HPSCI testimony. Indeed, on or about September 26, 2017—the day

that STONE testified before HPSCI and denied having ever sent or received emails or text

messages from Person 2—STONE and Person 2 exchanged over thirty text messages.

34. Certain electronic messages between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and

Person 2 would have been material to HPSCI. For example:

a. In or around July 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 to “get to” the head of

Organization 1 and obtain the pending emails. 

b. In or around September 2016, STONE sent messages directing Person 2 to pass a

request to the head of Organization 1. 

c. On or about January 6, 2017, Person 2 sent STONE an email that had the subject

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 16 of 24
17

line “Back channel bs.” In the email, Person 2 wrote, “Well I have put together

timelines[] and you [] said you have a back-channel way back a month before I had

[the head of Organization 1] on my show . . . I have never had a conversation with

[the head of Organization 1] other than my radio show . . . I have pieced it all

together . . .so you may as well tell the truth that you had no back-channel or there’s

the guy you were talking about early August.”

STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with the Trump Campaign

35. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “did you discuss your conversations with

the intermediary with anyone involved in the Trump campaign?” STONE falsely and misleadingly

answered, “I did not.” In truth and in fact, and as described above, STONE spoke to multiple

individuals involved in the Trump Campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his

intermediary to Organization 1, including the following:

a. On multiple occasions, STONE told senior Trump Campaign officials about

materials possessed by Organization 1 and the timing of future releases.

b. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump

Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”

c. On or about October 4, 2016, STONE told a high-ranking Trump Campaign official

that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but would release

“a load every week going forward.”

Attempts to Prevent Person 2 from Contradicting STONE’s False Statements to HPSCI

36. On or about October 19, 2017, STONE sent Person 2 an excerpt of his letter to HPSCI that

identified Person 2 as his “intermediary” to Organization 1. STONE urged Person 2, if asked by

HPSCI, to falsely confirm what STONE had previously testified to, including that it was Person 2

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 17 of 24
18

who provided STONE with the basis for STONE’s early August 2016 statements about contact

with Organization 1. Person 2 repeatedly told STONE that his testimony was false and told him

to correct his testimony to HPSCI. STONE did not do so. STONE then engaged in a prolonged

effort to prevent Person 2 from contradicting STONE’s false statements to HPSCI. 

37. In or around November 2017, Person 2 received a request from HPSCI to testify voluntarily

before the committee. After being contacted by HPSCI, Person 2 spoke and texted repeatedly with

STONE. In these discussions, STONE sought to have Person 2 testify falsely either that Person 2

was the identified intermediary or that Person 2 could not remember what he had told STONE. 

Alternatively, STONE sought to have Person 2 invoke his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination. For example:

a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that

his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, “‘Stonewall it. Plead

the fifth. Anything to save the plan’ . . . Richard Nixon.” On or about November

20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI’s request for a

voluntary interview.

b. On or about November 21, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I wastold that the house

committee lawyer told my lawyer that I will be getting a subpoena.” STONE

responded, “That was the point at which your lawyers should have told them you

would assert your 5th Amendment rights if compelled to appear.” 

c. On or about November 28, 2017, Person 2 received a subpoena compelling his

testimony before HPSCI. Person 2 informed STONE of the subpoena.

d. On or about November 30, 2017, STONE asked Person 1 to write publicly about

Person 2. Person 1 responded, “Are you sure you want to make something out of

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 18 of 24
19

this now? Why not wait to see what [Person 2] does. You may be defending

yourself too much—raising new questions that will fuel new inquiries. This may

be a time to say less, not more.” STONE responded by telling Person 1 that

Person 2 “will take the 5th—but let’s hold a day.”

e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told

Person 2 that Person 2 should do a “Frank Pentangeli” before HPSCI in order to

avoid contradicting STONE’s testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film

The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who

testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know

critical information that he does in fact know. 

f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, “And if you turned over

anything to the FBI you’re a fool.” Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, “You

need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th.” STONE responded, “If

you testify you’re a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain

[sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who

gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.” 

38. On or about December 12, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he intended to assert his

Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if required to appear by subpoena. Person 2

invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in part to avoid providing evidence that would show

STONE’s previous testimony to Congress was false.

39. Following Person 2’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before

HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into

Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 19 of 24
20

investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to

prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example: 

a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I met [the head of

Organization 1] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should

be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest.” STONE replied

approximately two minutes later, “I’m not talking to the FBI and if your smart you

won’t either.” 

b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, “You are a rat.

A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip

you to shreds.” STONE also said he would “take that dog away from you,”

referring to Person 2’s dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2,

“I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].” 

c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, “You should

have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you’ve opened yourself

up to perjury charges like an idiot.” STONE responded, “You are so full of

[expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I’ll file a bar

complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head

of Organization 1].” 

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 20 of 24
21

COUNT ONE

(Obstruction of Proceeding)

40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth herein.

41. From in or around May 2017 through at least December 2017, within the District of

Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., corruptly influenced,

obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper

exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry and investigation is being had by either

House, and any committee of either House and any joint committee of the Congress, to wit:

STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017;

STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests

about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and

misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2

testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1505 and 2.

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 21 of 24
22

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX

(False Statements)

42. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth herein.

43. On or about September 26, 2017, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, in a matter

within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, the

defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made

materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit:

Count False Statement

2 STONE testified falsely that he did not have

emails with third parties about the head of

Organization 1, and that he did not have any

documents, emails, or text messages that refer

to the head of Organization 1. 

3 STONE testified falsely that his August 2016

references to being in contact with the head of

Organization 1 were references to

communications with a single “go-between,”

“mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” who

STONE identified as Person 2.

4 STONE testified falsely that he did not ask the

person he referred to as his “go-between,”

“mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” to

communicate anything to the head of

Organization 1 and did not ask the

intermediary to do anything on STONE’s

behalf. 

5 STONE testified falsely that he and the person

he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual

friend,” and “intermediary” did not

communicate via text message or email about

Organization 1. 

6 STONE testified falsely that he had never

discussed his conversations with the person he

referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 22 of 24
23

Count False Statement

friend,” and “intermediary” with anyone

involved in the Trump Campaign.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001(a)(2) and 2.

COUNT SEVEN

(Witness Tampering)

44. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth herein.

45. Between in or around September 2017 and present, within the District of Columbia and

elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and intentionally corruptly

persuaded and attempted to corruptly persuade another person, to wit: Person 2, with intent to

influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(1).

________________________ 

Robert S. Mueller, III

Special Counsel

U.S. Department of Justice

A TRUE BILL:

________________________

Foreperson

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 23 of 24
24

Date: January 24, 2019

Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 1 Filed 01/24/19 Page 24 of 24