Roger Stone: I Hooked Up Nigel Farage With Donald Trump

Farage says Stone did no such thing.

Roger Stone

Brent N. Clarke/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last week, the Guardian published a report revealing a new and odd twist in the Trump-Russia scandal: Nigel Farage, the British politician who led the Brexit movement in Great Britain, is a “person of interest” in the FBI investigation of interactions between Trump associates and the Russian government. The newspaper reported that Farage was under FBI scrutiny because he had relationships with both the Trump camp and WikiLeaks, which disseminated Democratic emails swiped by Russian hackers in an effort to help Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Farage dismissed the story as “hysteria” and said he had not been contacted by the FBI. But Farage did meet with Trump during the campaign. And a source close to the Trump camp tells Mother Jones that a Trump-Farage meeting was set up by Roger Stone, the veteran political dirty-trickster and long-time Trump adviser who has come under investigation in the Trump-Russia inquiry.

That source is Stone himself.

In the months since the election, Stone has drawn the attention of investigators and reporters because he made statements during the campaign that implied he possessed inside information about WikiLeaks’ plans to release material stolen in the hack-and-leak covert operation mounted by Putin’s regime to subvert the 2016 campaign and assist Trump. In early August—after WikiLeaks had disseminated Democratic Party emails hacked by Russian intelligence—Stone said at a Republican event in Florida, “I actually have communicated with [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.” On October 2, he tweeted, “Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.” (This was five days before WikiLeaks released the emails of Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta, which were stolen by Russian hackers.) That month, Stone claimed he had “a back-channel communication” with Assange through “a good mutual friend.” During the campaign, Stone also communicated with Guccifer 2.0, the online persona that posted hacked Democratic emails, and Stone publicly insisted Guccifer 2.0 was not connected to the Russians.

Stone’s prescient statements about WikiLeaks’ anti-Clinton dumps and his claim of a connection with Assange naturally have raised questions about his role in the Trump-Russia scandal. And the Guardian report on Farage partly focused on the Brit’s ties to Stone. The story raised the possibility that Farage might have been Stone’s contact with WikiLeaks.

After the Guardian article was published, Mother Jones asked Stone if Farage was Stone’s “mutual friend” who had been his go-between with Assange. Stone replied, “Dined with him once in Cleveland [during the GOP convention in July]. Got him a meeting with the candidate. Never spoke to him again.”

So did Stone hook up Farage and Trump? The two politicians had a much-noticed rendezvous when Farage, then the leader of the UK Independence Party, appeared with Trump at a campaign rally in Mississippi in late August and declared, “If I was an American citizen, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me.” It was a moment when the conservative anti-European populism of England merged with Trump’s anti-establishment American Firstism. Farage spoke of pro-Brexit voters supporting the referendum to withdraw Great Britain from the European Union so “they could take back control of their country, take back control of their borders, and get back their pride and self-respect.” Farage urged the American people to “stand up against the establishment.”

A book written by a Farage associate and published in October reported that Farage’s partnership with Trump came about because the British politician, while attending the GOP convention, had a chance encounter at 4:30 a.m. in his hotel bar with an aide to Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican. The aide suggested Farage visit Mississippi and subsequently sent him a formal invitation. A month later, Farage flew to Mississippi, just when Trump was scheduled to speak at a Republican fundraiser and a campaign rally. Farage had dinner with Bryant and regaled him and other guests with Brexit stories. Bryant suggested Farage speak at the Trump rally the following night—after speaking at the GOP fundraiser. On a radio show the next morning, Farage announced he was in Mississippi to show his support for Trump. Steven Bannon, who had recently been named Trump’s chief strategist, called Farage to check what Farage intended to say at the Republican dinner and the Trump rally. Hours later, Farage met Trump for the first time, according to this account, in a holding room at the Republican fundraiser. Trump strode across the room and gave the British politician a bear hug.

This account makes no mention of Stone. I asked Stone how his assertion that he had set up a meeting between Farage and Trump squared with this report. He replied, “I suggested candidate [Trump] meet Farage immediately after the convention. Certain [Farage] asked others to secure a meeting. Don’t recall when it happened only that it did.” It’s unclear whether the meeting Stone says he brokered was the same as the Mississippi get-together.

Stone added, “You report so much bullshit why do you care about the facts?”

The facts here are intriguing. If the FBI is indeed examining Farage for his ties to Assange and the Trump crew, Stone’s interactions with Farage—and whether or not Stone really did connect him with Trump—could be relevant. The brash and brassy Stone, who relishes publicity and mud-slinging and who has written a book claiming LBJ killed JFK, has been an enticing target for Democrats and investigators pursuing the various threads of the Russia-Trump scandal. With the Farage connection, the plot thickens.

Farage did not reply to a request for comment. Neither did the White House.

UPDATE: A spokesman for Farage says, “Nigel met Roger Stone in a restaurant in Cleveland during the RNC purely by chance. They subsequently met each other in a hotel in Washington during Trump’s inauguration, again without planning and by chance. He did not organise any meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Farage.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate