Like a Raging Stone

“A Storm Foretold – Roger Stone and Die,” directed by Christoffer Guldbrandsen, releases today across the U.S.

With astonishing access, Danish director Christoffer Guldbrandsen spent years shadowing the preening GOP operative Roger Stone. The result is the compelling “A Storm Foretold–Roger Stone and Die,” a probing, fly-on-the-wall piece of documentary filmmaking that captures Stone’s relationships with violent rightwing extremists and his central if amorphous role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Investigative, philosophical and brisk, the 91-minute film reveals its narcissistic subject hobnobbing with MAGA brass and frequently fussing over his hair in front of the mirror. A flashy dresser and self-professed “tough guy,” Stone lives up to his reputation as a stogie-smoking prima donna obsessed with his Joker-like persona.

The grimly gripping “A Storm Foretold” is a professional departure for the director, whose previous documentaries focused on European subjects such as Copenhagen’s anarchist neighborhood of Christiania and the European Union presidency. His first American project also led to a turn in his personal health. The turbulent experience of filming “A Storm Foretold” seems to have triggered a cardiac arrest that was captured by a gym camera and is depicted in the film. The heart attack, together with his related anxiety over the future of democracy, has placed Guldbrandsen among the most melancholy Danes since Hamlet. I interviewed the director in his Copenhagen home via Zoom.

Truthdig: Roger Stone appears in the film with Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader who was later sentenced to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy. What is the connection between Stone and the Proud Boys?

Christoffer Guldbrandsen: For many members of the Proud Boys, Stone is an ideological inspiration. A lot of them look up to him. When I started shooting with Roger Stone back in October 2018, I knew very little about the Proud Boys. I had read about them, but they were not much on my radar. They kept popping up when I traveled with Roger serving as his volunteer security and hanging out.

I met Joe Biggs [convicted for seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 17 years in prison] and Enrique Tarrio at these fundraisers. What I witnessed was they were there to help him out with practical chores and provide security. [Stone] was close to Biggs and Tarrio. That was my first impression.

Obviously then, it accelerated during [Stone’s] trial in November 2019. Tarrio and Biggs traveled to D.C. and offered support. And came back again during the sentencing in February 2020. They were very close. 

TD: What about the connection between Stone and the Oath Keepers’ Elmer Stewart Rhodes [also sentenced for seditious conspiracy]?

CG: I don’t know anything that has not been reported in public about Roger’s connections to Stewart Rhodes. I was, of course, in D.C. on Jan. 5 and 6 [2021] with Stone, and there a group of Oath Keepers provided his security detail. In particular, Joshua James [leader of the Oath Keepers’ Alabama chapter], who was in his suite at the [Willard] hotel and was kind of the leader of that small unit. I think there were about five or six of them that were assigned to Roger. They had these golf carts they rolled around in.

I recall very clearly that Stone got upset, because he had been sidelined from speaking. There were all these rival factions of “Stop the Steal” at that point. So, he stayed in his suite. And at one point, Joshua James, the Oath Keeper who is now in prison [for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of Congress] called Sal Greco, who was also at that time a New York Police Department police officer from New York, who was a friend of Stone’s and served as his sort of volunteer security during the fifth. He got a call in the room from Joshua James down at the Ellipse, who wanted Stone to come down and lead the march with Alex Jones. So, Joshua James had a kind of coordinating role there. Roger didn’t want to go, so he just asked Sal Greco to say they couldn’t find him.

That’s what I knew about the Oath Keepers. The Proud Boys were much, much more integrated. For instance, on Nov. 5, two days after the election, Stone was laying out the plans to replace the electors, urging, encouraging protests and coordinating with his allies. He was communicating with the Trump campaign that day, he was communicating with Gen. [Mike] Flynn, and I also witnessed him having a conversation with Enrique Tarrio in the same breath. 

Tarrio had watched, had been at an election party in D.C., and had been stabbed afterwards. He called Stone and told him about this. And Stone then [told Enrique Tarrio] he was waiting for some more information from the Trump campaign. Then he cut us off and asked for a break so he could talk without us [the film crew] being there. 

So, I had a sense they were extremely close and I believe it was Dec. 10 there were these riot-like protests in D.C., Stone was there again, giving a speech, inciting the Proud Boys, side by side with Enrique Tarrio. I mean, that was very, very close and they were in constant communication, on the phone and via the encrypted chat group.

TD: There is a scene in “Storm” of Rhodes meeting with Tarrio in a garage on Jan. 5, 2021. Did you or your crew shoot that?

CG: No, that is shot by Nick Quested’s group and it is part of the evidence of the Jan. 6 committee’s work, and was published in that connection.

TD: Was Stone present at that Jan. 5 meeting?

CG: No.

TD: I’m trying to understand the big picture here: Leading up to and on Jan. 6, how well-connected was Stone to right-wing violent extremists?

CG: I think it’s difficult to get a piece of paper in between Enrique Tarrio and Roger Stone in this context. The Proud Boys’ leadership, through Biggs and Enrique Tarrio and Roger Stone was, from what I experienced, shortly intertwined. My point that I mentioned about that Nov. 5 [2020] situation, to me that was Roger Stone is, in my mind, and without any doubt, and I see it as a completely dry fact, Roger Stone is the link between the Trump campaign and the White House, and Trump the president, and the Proud Boys.

And it’s a very, very direct link that is manifested in our recordings where you can see Roger telling Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, that he’s waiting for more information for him from the White House and you have Roger saying in front of the camera he’s coordinating with the White House, and you have him in talks with Gen. Flynn and you have him completely laying out the plan of how to use allegations of voter fraud to justify replacing the electors. You cannot get a more clear-cut case, in my view, in terms of the Proud Boys.    

TD: Were the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers intended to be Trump’s stormtroopers and shock troops leading up to and on Jan. 6?

CG: I can’t say what they were intended to be. All I can say is Roger had an idea that they should — he had an intention that they should pressure state lawmakers to change the state electors. So, instead of pointing to Biden, they should point to Trump. That they should do that by protesting in the streets and as he puts it, “lobbying lawmakers.” His instrument in doing so, or his allies I would rather say, were the Proud Boys. I don’t know what was planned in terms of Jan. 6. What I know is in the film.

TD: It’s not in your film, but on Dec. 27, 2020, Stone had dinner with Trump. I know you weren’t there but what do you believe they discussed?

CG: I’d rather not speculate. But obviously they had been facing the issues Trump was facing and the effort they were into looking into. Stone was pardoned just around that time; Trump commuted Stone’s sentence back in July [2020] and then he pardoned him just around Christmas. They obviously discussed that issue but Roger Stone at that point in time was also very close to both [businessman/conspiracy theorist Patrick] Byrne and Gen. Flynn and others actively pushing a radical approach for Trump to remain in office, despite his election loss.  

TD: At the critical moment Trump appears to have turned towards violence as the means for stopping the certification of the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, by unleashing the dogs of war and directing them towards the Capitol Building, your documentary shows that Roger Stone is iced out. If he’s really the Trump administration’s link to the MAGA shock troops, of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc., why did Stone get frozen out at the last minute?

CG: I would not articulate it the way that you do. It’s a very difficult question for me to answer because I don’t agree with the premise. I think we have to limit ourselves to the established facts. No one can say for certain what President Trump knew or didn’t know about the plans that the Proud Boys and others might have had on Jan. 6. I don’t think that has been established as a fact. And I don’t know what exactly the communications and knowledge level of Stone into what the Proud Boys had been planning were. I do of course have my private speculations, they are only speculations. 

Jan. 6 is more important than many people realize. Not just in its isolated incidents, but its cultural and historical impact long term. I really try to discipline myself and stay only within the perimeters of what I have witnessed myself or captured on camera.

TD: I’m going to try and re-ask the question differently. In your film, it’s shown that on Jan. 6 Roger is preparing to go to speak on the same platform as Trump in front of the White House. But it turns out that although a car is sent for Giuliani, no car is sent to pick up Roger. Why do you think Roger was not invited to speak with Trump and Giuliani in front of the White House on Jan. 6?

CG: I believe that was uncovered in the work of the Jan. 6 Congressional commission’s work. It was related to internal rivalry in the “Stop the Steal” movement. And some of the people in the White House responsible for the speakers list found Stone to be inappropriate to speak on the same stage as Trump.

TD: Do you think it’s possible that in his upcoming Jan. 6 Jack Smith trial Trump may use this as evidence of his innocence? 

CG: No, I don’t think that’s likely at all. I don’t think it proves anything. It just proves that Stone didn’t go there. I don’t think it incriminates Trump or shows any innocence. 

TD: At the end of “Storm” Stone has very harsh things to say about Trump and his inner circle and even verbally endorses impeachment and imprisoning Eric Trump. Trump also refuses to grant him a second presidential pardon, and Stone fears he’ll be arrested as he flees D.C. on or about Jan. 6. Why did Stone want the second Trump pardon?

CG: He wanted it articulated the same as [the] blanket preemptive pardon [President Gerald] Ford [gave] Richard Nixon. This was something I discussed with him and tried to understand better, because you could choose to interpret it as indication of guilt when you seek a preemptive pardon. Of course, Stone’s explanation for wanting a preemptive pardon was to protect him against an illegitimate witch hunt and an attempt to stifle his freedom, rights.   

TD: And the [desired] pardon would have covered his events leading up to and on Jan. 6?

CG: Yes.

TD: Does Stone have a sort of epiphany about Donald Trump at the end of your film, realizing that he’s been backing the wrong horse, a total opportunist who’s really bad for America? 

CG: I don’t think he had an epiphany, but he was extremely disappointed throughout the process. Roger Stone is a very capable man and knows President Trump very well. I don’t think he was surprised, but he was extremely disappointed. He would at times, throughout the process when the camera was not rolling, be rather critical of Trump. He’d often refer to him as “Mr. Ungrateful,” implying that Stone had a larger role in Trump’s ascent to power than Trump was willing to acknowledge.

So, I think that last scene is the expression of Roger Stone feeling that — his anger stemmed, my observation was that it went back to the trial he had gone through. The first trial — where he was convicted to 40 months in federal prison was for Stone — he was indicted on seven counts for covering up for Trump, trying to protect Trump from the Russia investigation. He went all the way to protect Trump in an extreme show of loyalty and at a great personal cost.

And then when he was commuted and pardoned, you could argue he went all in again to help Trump try to overturn the election. Once again, he did everything he could, risked everything. Then he felt betrayed at the end.

TD: As the film ends, Stone says if Trump “runs again [he’ll] get his brains beat in.” Stone has arguably been Trump’s longest political adviser. What is Stone’s relationship with Trump today?

CG: My impression is they’re relatively close. I can see they’re traveling together. But [after] I was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 Committee and cooperated with them, Stone threatened to sue me. So, I’m not communicating with him; I don’t have any inside knowledge. Stone has, to a certain extent, forgiven him.

Some of our material, [such as] that scene where he’s furious with Trump, was shown in context of the Committee hearings, and has been a bit of a problem for Stone in Trump circles. He has explained this by saying the material is computer generated, made with Artificial Intelligence by the Danish intelligence services. To my astonishment, this explanation has been broadly embraced in the Trump hemisphere and possibly also by Trump. They are always seen together again.

TD: At the end of “Storm” you describe your relationship with Stone as “complicated.” In retrospect, what do you make of the guy? What makes Roger Stone tick?

CG: In many ways he is a mirror of Donald Trump. He always needs to touch the flame. He has a “win at all costs” mentality and has a very fine-tuned intuition for communicating in the most populist way. He’s very knowledgeable; he’s been in presidential politics for decades and has witnessed and experienced a lot, and has a very good analytical apparatus that lives, oddly, beside this conspiratorial, almost insane, Trumpian perspective on the world.  

TD: At the close of your film, you ruminate, calling the events you witnessed “only the beginning… a warning of what’s yet to come.” Please elaborate. 

CG: The most important observation [regarding] Jan. 6 is not the tragic and violent events but the impact of the forces that were unleashed around it — what they will do in the future. I think Jan. 6 will become, and is already, a lightbulb moment that signifies the end of an era and the beginning of a new era. There will be a before and an after Jan. 6. It’s not because the event in itself is so spectacular. But neither have some of the big historical events that have indicated the beginning of new eras, dating back to the assassination attempt of [Archduke] Franz Ferdinand at the bridge in Sarajevo. That was an isolated violent action, but then it became a lightbulb moment with a chain reaction. 

I think what we witnessed in America, in the leadership of the Republican Party, was their willingness to delegitimize the electoral process. To convince millions of voters not to have trust in free and fair elections. That is something you cannot undo. That is a force you unleashed that will only accelerate. I cannot predict the future, but that is a factor that can only lead to great challenges.

The other one is the Russia investigation. This politicization of the justice system, a sitting president systematically attacking law enforcement, the independence of the courts and the Justice Department, delegitimizing these institutions that are crucial for upholding democracy. That was merged with the erosion of trust in the elections.

As we go into the 2024 election, there seems to be a complete dissolution of the division of the three [branches of government]. It’s a natural consequence, it cannot be any other way. You have to hold people accountable for their transgressions, the illegalities of Trump have to stand trial. But this does politicize the justice system and thus delegitimizes it in millions of Americans’ perspective.

That’s why I say it’s only the beginning. Because what we’re looking into in 2024, it’s either Trump winning the election, if he becomes the presidential candidate, or him losing, which will also release some very strong forces. It looks extremely threatening.

That’s just the American context. But you’ve got to remember modern democracies are extremely intertwined today. Alliances are often stronger between political groups across borders than with their countrymen. This development in the U.S. will spread instantaneously to other modern democracies, or at least inspire instantaneously.

TD: In “A Storm Foretold” you suffered cardiac arrest. How are you feeling now, and what’s next for Christoffer Guldbrandsen?

CG: I’m feeling great. I had a double bypass. I have this built in heart starter should it happen again. I’m spending all my energy trying to get the film out in the U.S.