Grant J. Smith
Attorney-at-Law
 

December 3, 2018 

Grant J. Smith, Esq. 
gsmith@strategysmith.com 
Direct Dial – 954.328.9064 
 

 
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY 
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 
Ranking Minority Member 
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
Washington, D.C.  20510-6275 
 
Re: Roger Stone Document and Interview Request 
 
Dear Ranking Minority Member Feinstein: 
 
On the advice of counsel, Mr. Stone will not produce the documents requested by you 
in your capacity as Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. The requests, as 
previously stated to staff, are far too overbroad, far too overreaching, far too wide ranging 
both in their all-embracing list of persons to whom the request could relate with whom Mr. 
Stone  has  communicated  over  the  past  three  years,  and  the  “documents  concerning” 
imprecision of the requests. For the additional reasons set forth below, Mr. Stone respectfully 
declines to produce any documents and declines the invitation for an interview. 
 
You  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Stone  testified  before  the  House  Intelligence 
Committee.  In  the  coming  weeks,  the  House  Intelligence  Committee  is  intending  to  make 
public the transcripts of the testimony it has taken. Presumably that will include Mr. Stone’s 
testimony and you will soon see that he directly and fully answered all of the questions posed 
to him. Mr. Stone was disappointed that the House Committee did not earlier make public his 
testimony; indeed the Committee rejected his demand to make it public. Hopefully the release 
of  the  transcripts  will  cure  that  unfortunate  effort  to  prevent  public  knowledge  of  his 
testimony. 
 
Previously Mr. Stone requested that if any testimony were to be given by Mr. Stone, it 
be held in public session. The decision  by the House Intelligence Committee to proceed in 
private lent itself to a number of inaccurate leaks and speculation which disserved both my 
client and the public interest. 
 
Mr. Stone decries secrecy. He will not subject himself to the innuendo of non-public 
proceedings. Nor will he confirm the existence of, or produce the documents of the request, 
for the purpose of being used in secret proceedings.  
 
In Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Fifth 
Amendment protects “innocent men ... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous  
Grant J. Smith   Attorney-at-Law   401 East Las Olas Blvd.   Suite 130-120   Fort Lauderdale, Florida   33301   954.328.9064 

 Page 2 of 2 

 
 
circumstances.” I hardly need to say that the gossip and innuendo which surrounds Mr. Stone 
in  the  press,  in  Congress  and,  according  to  news  reports,  in  the  Special  Counsel’s  offices, 
provides him with a reasonable basis to protect himself from the “ambiguous circumstances” 
which some have embraced. 
 
The production of documents that may be responsive to the unreasonably broad scope 
of  the  imprecise,  fishing  expedition,  request  would  unquestionably  be  a  testimonial  act 
protected  by  the  U.S.  Constitution.  The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the 
production  of  documents  is  subject  to  Fifth  Amendment  protection.  In Watkins  v.  United 
States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-188 (1957), Chief Justice Warren made the pointed argument that, 
“the constitutional rights of witnesses will be respected by the Congress as they are in a court 
of  justice...Witnesses  cannot  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  themselves.”  When  the 
Constitutional rights issue was later applied to documents that were the subject of a broad 
subpoena by an independent counsel, the Court in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), 
held that the Constitutional right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself was 
applicable to the production of documents that would be testimonial in nature. Whether the 
documents  requested  by  the  Senate  Committee  exist  or  not,  they  are  subject  to  a  Fifth 
Amendment claim. 
 
This reply in response to the request by you, is written with the utmost respect for the 
Committee  and  its  staff.  Mr.  Stone’s  invocation  of  his  Fifth  Amendment  privilege  must  be 
understood  by  all  to  be  the  assertion  of  a  Constitutional  right  by  an  innocent  citizen  who 
denounces secrecy. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Grant J. Smith, Esq. 
 
 
 
cc: 
Bruce Rogow, Esq. 
 
Robert Buschel, Esq. 
 
Tara Campion, Esq. 
 

 

The Law Offices of Grant J. Smith   401 East Las Olas Blvd.   Suite 130-120   Fort Lauderdale, Florida   33301   954.328.9064