Transcript for 'I expect to be acquitted and vindicated': Roger Stone on Mueller indictment
contacts with Russia, but no prosecutions for conspireing with Russia. Is this the end of the beginning for Mueller or the beginning of the end? What happens with Roger stone, a big piece of that puzzle, he starts us off this morning. Thank you for joining us this morning. We appreciate you being here, but I have to say and you know this is pretty unusual strategy. Most people indicted go underground until the official proceedings. What do you hope to gain with interviews like this? Well, I must tell you, George. I think the way I was treated on Thursday is extraordinary. I think the American people need to hear about it. I'm 66 years old. I don't own a firearm. I have no prior criminal record. My passport has expired. The special counsel's office is well aware of the fact that I'm represented. The idea that a 29-member S.W.A.T. Team in full tactical gear with assault weapons would surround my house, 17 vehicles in my front yard, including two armored vehicles, a helicopter overhead. Amphibious vehicles in the back where my house backs onto a canal and I would open the door looking down the barrel of assault weapons, that I would be frog marched out front barefoot. And handcuffed when they simply couldn't have -- It's pretty standard for that to happen. They work in -- No, it's not. Not standard at all. They were concerned you were a flight risk and you might tamper with evidence. They were concerned you might destroy evidence and they did that. Even by your own testimony, by your own admission, you said that the FBI agents were courteous. Let's get on -- Let's address that. First of all, I was released on bond on my own signature which is evidence that I was not a flight risk and secondly, I have been under investigation for two years. I have destroyed nothing, but if I were going to destroy evidence, wouldn't I have done it a long time ago? They could simply have called my lawyers and I would have turned myself in. It was an expensive shell of force to try to depict me as public Enny number one, the og to I -- attempt to point the jury pool. These are gestapo tactics. Let's get to what's most important in the indictment on page four. Mueller and his team write, after the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC e-mails, that's wikileaks, a senior trump campaign official was directed to contact stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information organization one had in the campaign. Stone thereafter told the trump campaign about future release es of damaging material by organization one. Stone also contacted organization one in order to obtain damaging e-mails to the Clinton campaign. You said you believe that that senior official is Rick Gates, the deputy campaign chair? Yes. That's who I believe is seeking a reduction in his sentence. Later on there is a reference to an exchange between Steve Bannon in which he asks me about a public event, Julian assange's press event on October 7th and I respond with two matters that have been published by politico and "The guardian," completely public information. One, that there are security concerns by assange in the embassy in Ecuador and as politico reported there would be weekly dumps of information every week for ten weeks with all U.S. Information released in the weeks before the information. None of that proprietary or secret. Rick Gates did contact you about getting information? That is speculation on my part. I have no e-mails or text messages -- You spoke with him? I never spoke about this matter with Rick Gates, but I'm mindful of the special counsel's ability to induce people would say things that are not true. Particularly people who are seeking a reduction in their sentence or people who have an ax to grind. I urged to fire Steve Bannon and therefore had a major impact. I suspect that I'm not his favorite person, but notice I am not charged with conspiracy or with having advanced knowledge of the contact. I said that. Do you know who directed Rick Gates to contact you? I don't know that anybody did. I guess we'll find out at trial, but to have -- to have wolf Blitzer on CNN or preet bharara, a man accused of willfully leaking a grand jury testimony to the media, speculate that that was Donald Trump, that is baseless, irresponsible speculation. Let me -- I never discussed this matter with candidate trump or president trump as I told you previously. You said that to me. That remains the case. You said that to me in the past, but you never discussed wikileaks or Julian assange with president trump, but did you have conversations during the campaign or since the campaign about Russia or the Mueller investigation? None, whatsoever. Zero. Categorically. Zero. The president seemed to be distancing himself from you in a tweet last night. He wrote, Roger stone didn't even work for me anywhere near the election. Does that concern you? No. Not really. When Sarah Sanders says it has nothing to do with the president, she is correct. I never discussed these matters with the president, and everything that I did regarding trying to get as much public attention to the wikileaks disclosures among voters, among the media is constitutionally protected free speech. That's what I engaged in. It's called politics. They haven't criminalized it, at least not yet. You said it's free speech, but we know that Russia was behind that hack of the DNC e-mails. No. No. We have an allegation that is yet unproved in any U.S. Court of law. It is an allegation. These are the same people -- Excuse me. The unanimous conclusion of U.S. Intelligence agencies, so given that, do you regret the role you played? They are politicized as we know. They told us Saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You don't regret your role in disseminating those e-mails? I didn't disseminate e-mail. That would be discharacterization of what I did. Cheering them on? I think that they were devastating and the entire question of where they came from and how they were published is meant to distract from the content of those e-mails which don -- demonstrated the corruption and dirty tricks of the campaign. They say what was important here is that Russia was interfering in our election and by helping that cause, aren't you aiding and abetting an adversary of the United States? I challenge that characterization. It is unproven. It is a claim. I tried to do the same thing that Daniel elsberg did in which "The Washington post" called him a hero. I haven't received any stolen or hacked material. I took publicly available information and tried to hype it to get as much information as possible because I had a tip. The information was politically significant and it would come in October. On Friday, you were arrested but Mueller's team also and the FBI executed search warrants of your home in Florida and new York City as well. Do you have any idea what they were after and are you worried about what they will find? No. Not in the slightest. I am concerned they took a number of privileged communications between me and my attorneys, but in all honesty, I have been under surveillance for two years. My e-mail, my text messages, my phone calls have been fully reviewed. We know that because they have asked people who are associated with me about specific items before the grand jury. "The New York Times" reported on January 20, 2017 that I was among three trump aides under surveillance in 2016 to help to learn more about that in discovering "The times" will not retract that story. They still stand by it. I believe it to be true. There is nothing to find. I have a million e-mails. They have beeported. Many of them taken out of context in this indictment, but there is nothing to find. Again, I think it is -- it is designed to intimidate me or perhaps seek personal information that can be used to embarrass me that has nothing to do with wikileaks, Russia, the 2016 campaign or anything else. Just to be clear, have you destroyed or discarded any communications devices, wiped any hard drives clean since the campaign? Categorically not. My lawyers have been insistent on this. We very early had a request from both the senate and the house. We have destroyed nothing whatsoever. You say you won't bear false witness against president trump. Are you prepared to tell the truth about your dealings with him to the special counsel, your truth about the dealings with the campaign? Any chance you will cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller if he asks? That's a question I would have to -- I would have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion. If there is wrongdoing by other people in the campaign which I know about -- which I know of none, I would certainly testify honestly. I would also testify honestly about any other matter including any communications with the president. It's true that we spoke on the phone, but those communications are political in nature. They are benign and there is no conspiracy with Russia. The president's right. There is no Russian collusion. He has never suggested to you in any way, shape or form he might offer you a pardon? Absolutely, positively not. I have never discussed a pardon. The only person I advocated a pardon for as we discussed previously, is Marcus Garvey and I have written the president as to why I think that might be done. Prosecutors have looked at this case and said you might need a pardon, including Chris Christie coming up, calling this a slam-dunk case, who is coming up later. You denied having any documents or text messages discussing wikileaks or assange, but the prosecutors in the indictment lay out several e-mails, dozens of text messages. You know, they're right. I did forget on some occasions that I had text messages and e-mails that are entirely exculpatory and -- Let me stop you there. You say you forgot. On the day you testified, you didn't have any exchanges with creditco. You had 30 exchanges. 30 text exchanges on the day you said you didn't remember it. A man who threatened to put a bullet in the head of one of Mueller's witnesses before the grand jury, but is not charged with witness tampering or intimidation. A man who lied to the grand jury about being my source regarding the source in the wikileaks disclosures. He threatened me in writing to have a woman falsely accuse Meto of sexual assault. How can you do with him? The text messages are the text messages. They are documents. I will prove in court that any failure memory on my part was without intent and will be ill material. I am human and I did make some errors, but they are errors that would be inconsequential in the scope of this investigation. I want to share exchanges you had. This was from the indictment. On multiple occasions on December 1, 2017. Stone told person two that person two should do a frank pentangeli for HP sci, in order to avoid contradicting the testimony. Of course, he is a character from "The godfather part 2," before the congressional committee, and he claims not to know that you know. You were telling him not to tell the truth. He is an impressionist. He does Humphrey bogaerts, and he does Richard Nixon, bill Clinton. The exchange we talked about is Roger stone this. Roger stone that. Roger stone was in the olive oil business with my father, but that was a long time ago. It is -- it has to be seen in context. It is a humorous exchange. So they are taking things out of context to present them in a light that it mischaracterized their significance. I never told him to lie. I did at one point when he said, my liberal friends will be very upset. My Progressive friends would be upset if they think I was helping you. They would think I was helping trump. It was only in that context of the fifth amendment, was discussed. You're in shape, but you're not a young man. Are you prepared to spend the last, best years of your life in jail? I expect to be acquitted and vindicated and that my attorneys including Bruce rogow, one of the best in the country, believe this indictment is thin. Thin as piss on a rock. So I'm prepared to fight for my life. I have to go to the public at stonedefense.com to ask for
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.