All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:55
EPISODE 667: SUPREME COURT SMACKDOWN, COLORADO SET TO LOSE BIG ON TRUMP ELIGIBILITY CASE

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSOGo to https://www.BlackoutCoffee.com/POSO and use promo code POSO20 for 20% OFF your first order.Go to https://www.patriotmobile.com/poso/ or call 878-PATRIOT to get free activation with offer code POSOSupport the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Pozo Daily Brief.
It is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you, totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Sign up today.
It's called the Pozo Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Totally free.
The Pozo Daily Brief.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection.
And I read your opening brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection, but then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not.
We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection.
President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection.
Then that's saying that in this context, which is very high stakes, if we review the facts essentially de novo, you want us all to just watch the video of the ellipse and then make a decision without any deference to or guidance from lower court fact finding?
That's unusual.
Would we have to have our own trial?
No, Your Honor, but ultimately what we have here is an insurrection that was incited in plain sight rules.
You're really not answering my question.
It's not helpful if you don't do that.
Congress has enacted statutes, including one still in effect, Section 2383 of Title 18, prohibits insurrection.
It's a federal criminal statute.
And if you're convicted of that, you are, it says, shall be disqualified from holding any office.
And so there is a federal statute on the books, but President Trump has not been charged with that.
So what are we to make of that?
Think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide, because your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.
On your theory, Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?
I'm not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question.
If you don't have an answer, fair enough, we'll move on.
Impeachment's the only way to validate that they don't have the ability to hold that office and should be removed.
There were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices, so that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified.
Well, there were certainly national candidates who were disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them.
I understand that, but that's not this case.
The framers were concerned about charismatic rebels who might rise through the ranks up to and including the presidency of the United States.
But then why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in Section 3?
I'm a believer in our country and I'm a believer in the Supreme Court.
I listened today and I thought our arguments were very, very strong.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily, live from Washington, D.C.
Today is February 8th, 2024.
I know, Dominique.
I don't know, folks, if you just watched that Supreme Court hearing, but this was like the Super Bowl for politics, and it was a blowout.
Absolute Supreme Court smackdown.
Jonathan Mitchell, coming from the Philly area, got to support that going in there and just really having great answers for the court, having excellent, I think, arguments for the president on behalf of the fact that this ridiculous case, remember this incredibly insane case from arguments for the president on behalf of the fact that this ridiculous case, remember this incredibly insane case from the state of Colorado, which by the way, of course, will have other bearing on states throughout the nation that are trying to do this, these lefty states, these blue states that are running around will have other bearing
It sounds as though the court is just completely not even interested in this.
It's so bad that they've even lost the libs on the court.
Kagan doesn't sound like she's down for this.
Ketaji Brown doesn't sound like she's in for this.
They might even lose Sotomayor.
They might even lose Sotomayor.
That's how bad Colorado standing is here because it really comes down to this.
It comes down to and this was the key question.
I think of the entire the entire brief and by the way, we've you know, hats off to the great Clarence Thomas, an absolute national treasure.
The Democrats and the media lost their minds that Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from this case, basically saying, look, I'm a Supreme Court justice.
This is something that has precedence over every single future president of the United States.
He should not recuse himself only because he is smarter than the liberal justices.
And he is smarter than anything that the leftist sent him.
No, he should not refuse himself for one second.
And that's how he completely owned this lawyer there.
I was joking on Twitter earlier that Clarence Thomas really just committed murder in front of the entire nation.
But it comes down to this simple question.
We'll have Roger Stone joining us here soon.
Is the case, is the case, and this is what I think the case is, the states have the right to tell other states who they are or they're not allowed to vote for?
No.
Obviously they do not.
It is clear they do not.
And ladies and gentlemen, this court is going to strike again.
It might be 9-0, but don't count Sotomayor out.
She might find some way to commie herself out of this.
So it could be 8-1.
We'll see.
Roger Stone joins us next.
We'll have all the updates.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the best ways that you can support us here at Human Events and the work that we do is subscribing to us on our Rumble channel.
Make sure you're subscribed, you hit the notifications so you'll never miss a clip, you'll never miss a new live episode, and we're putting them out every single day of the week.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack.
Trim out his outlets, a bam ship, nippy bam bam, like Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec back here at Human Events daily live, Washington, D.C.
for 10 years.
Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
And when I say only, trust me, they're the only one.
Glenn and the team have been great supporters of this show, which is why I'm proud to partner with them.
Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage that you've been accustomed to without funding the lab.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, and our military veterans and first responder heroes.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
Their team will help you find the best plan for your needs.
Just go to PatriotMobile.com slash POSO and get free activation when you use promo code POSO.
Join me, make the switch today.
PatriotMobile.com slash POSO.
That is PatriotMobile.com slash POSO.
We are joined here by veteran and iconic Republican strategist Roger Stone.
Roger, I'd love to get your thoughts on the president's hearing this morning, his legal team, and how everything shook out.
Seems to have gone extraordinarily well, Jack.
I mean, it's somewhat ironic that those who accuse us of being anti-democracy are trying to knock their opponent off the ballot so that we can't have an election.
I can't think of anything Less democratic than that.
Their argument has always been flawed, that because Trump engaged in insurrection, well, according to who, has no conviction for insurrection, he should therefore be ineligible to be on the ballot in the next election.
I just came off a debate just minutes ago with former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who said, well, The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about conviction.
I said, yeah, but it's a subjective argument.
So who then decides whether he has, in quote unquote, engaged in insurrection if he has no conviction for that?
But that's not the only problem.
The other problem here is that the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically does not, based on previous Supreme Court decisions, regard the president and the vice president.
It specifically regards Officers of the United States, which the courts have held previously, the President and Vice President are not for technical reasons.
And then there's a third argument that even if the first two were correct, that the Congress would have to have enacted some enabling legislation.
This wasn't self-fulfilling or self-executing.
So it's a very strong legal argument.
It has been from the beginning.
The only reason it's in front of the court is because the Colorado Supreme Court is extraordinarily politicized.
It was rejected at the lower court, surprisingly, but it was revived.
The case was revived and reversed by Colorado's incredibly politicized Supreme Court, where every single justice is a Democrat.
But even that said, there were two Very strong and very articulate dissents from two of the Colorado justices.
So it was ironic, Jack, the three justices who went to Ivy League colleges, they agreed with the argument that Trump should be knocked off the ballot.
The two Democrat justices who both went to community colleges, they said no.
And this is really interesting to me as well, Roger, that in numerous instances here, you had basic questions that were asked of the justices to this lawyer for, I would say the Democrat lawyer in Colorado, when he came up on the back end.
I thought the Republican, the appellate lawyer for President Trump was a, I think he did a fine job.
I think he did a very fine job.
I hope that we're going to be seeing more of him in some of these other cases.
By the way, there's Jonathan Mitchell.
But the Democrat lawyer, I mean, just asking questions of the justices, really kind of impugning them, refusing to answer basic questions.
And it doesn't surprise me, by the way, that Neil Gorsuch and others really took him to task.
This is a situation where When I served as a Navy intel officer, if I had guys under me, if I had junior analysts, and we were preparing them to train for a briefing of a commander, of a captain, of any higher up, a flag officer, say it, and you know, you really have to train them right away that you always have respect for their office and you don't get to You don't get to ask them questions.
They ask you the questions, and you must be respectful.
This Murray character, he seemed incredibly disrespectful, and I really think at one point Gorsuch just absolutely took him to the whipping post.
Well, the whole thing was a welcome change from roughly a week ago, when Trump's lawyer, a fellow named Sauer, who has certainly an impressive pedigree on paper, I think had a major misstep Before the appeals court in arguing on the question of presidential immunity.
One minute and 58 seconds into his presentation, he was asked what was clearly a prescripted question as to whether, as president, if Trump had SEAL Team 6 go out and assassinate his political opponent and then had SEAL Team 6 assassinate every senator who then wanted to impeach Trump because of it, Would Trump have full presidential immunity?
First of all, every seasoned trial attorney I know says you don't answer hypothetical questions.
But secondarily, even in this case, since none of those activities would have fallen within the purview of his responsibilities as president, the answer was probably no.
That wouldn't happen, but even if it did, there would be no immunity.
Now, the left has taken this faux pas.
And they have really used it to try to characterize Trump's entire argument, trying to say, well, Trump is saying he can do anything he wants.
His president would have full immunity.
It's not really what he's saying.
However, and we talked about this, the implication, if the court rules against Trump, the implications for other past and future presidents is really extraordinary.
In other words, that means that there would be no immunity.
And therefore, as you pointed out, U.S. citizens hit with a drone strike or U.S. citizens illegally surveilled upon, like, oh, I don't know, Tucker Carlson, James Rosen, they would have substantial legal actions against former presidents or future presidents.
Or I would even add to that list, by the way, how about spying on your own political opposition, as in the opposing candidate for your party?
People forget, of course, that the origins of the Russiagate consequence all started with a FISA warrant that was illegally and improperly obtained on elements of the Trump campaign.
Carter Page George Papadopoulos, others who were spied upon.
And so the idea that someone could be held criminally liable, well, why couldn't some justice immediately come out and say, well, look, this was election interference, clearly from Barack Obama.
By the way, you had Alito in there at one point insinuate.
I don't think that, I actually don't think that this Murray understood what Alito was saying, but he said, if there were a country that was an avowed enemy of the United States and the president released funding to that country, could that be considered an act of could that be considered an act of aiding comfort to the enemy?
Now, of course, anyone who's paying attention to the situation would know that he's talking about Iran and he's talking about the fact that Biden did release money to Iran immediately before these Hamas attacks back in October of last year.
But he just glossed right past the entire argument.
Yeah, you raise an excellent point.
It would seem to me that if presidential immunity was stripped, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos would have a very serious legal action that they could bring.
Today they're prevented from doing so because, well, President Obama, who was president at the time, had immunity.
Once again, there's the law, then there's the Trump exception.
It seems the way this always worked.
The law is for everybody else except for Donald Trump, well, and his supporters.
Well, and I do think this also, I agree with what you're saying, that we should view this in terms of telegraphing where the justices, at least some of those, will come down on the immunity argument.
I think it stands within reason to say that, of course, they are going to be grinding cert to that case to presidential immunity and bringing up this question of presidential immunity.
And I think we probably can read between the lines because they're not really, I don't think they're trying to be circuitous with their speech and saying that they do believe On ballot access?
President, these these safeguards are there for a reason.
These are basic checks and balances in our system.
And it doesn't sound like, again, even Ketanji Brown, even Kagan, they don't want to open this thing up to an absolute free for all the way that the Democrats and their allies in the media.
By the way, Andrew Weissman, your your best friend is even out there saying that this could be a seven to two or even nine or ruling.
On ballot access.
On ballot access.
Yes.
I'm actually fairly confident on ballot access.
Excellent presentation this morning by David Schoen, the criminal defense lawyer who represented Donald Trump in the Ukrainian impeachment.
Excellent presentation on CNN.
I think he demolished this.
Again, I'm growingly optimistic that the court's going to reach the correct decision on the question of ballot access.
It was also, ironically, In some of the strangest and most unpredictable places, Massachusetts, Michigan, places where the courts are fairly liberal, this has gone to those state supreme courts and it's been denied.
So the people who are anti-democratic are, in fact, the Democrats, and they really just don't want to face Donald Trump at the ballot box.
That's what this is really about, to try to eliminate him one way or another.
Obviously, we know the other way they seek to eliminate him, which would be to try to convict him of some crime.
But everything here, I think, as you know, relates to timetable.
In other words, when CNN and the New York Times editorial page, both of them criticized Jack Smith for being in a hurry.
Because it's clear that he wants to get to a criminal trial prior to election day.
That's right, Roger.
Hold that, hold that thought because I do think it, we have a quick break coming up, but I think this is, this is crucial for everyone to understand.
The timetable, and by the way, just security, the lefts and Ben Wittes and all these, they understand that the timetable is not their friend.
Stay tuned more with the great Roger Stone coming up next from the Ben Staley.
You talk about influences.
These are influences.
And they're friends of mine, Jack Posovic.
Where's Jack?
He's done a great job.
All right, Jack Posovic back live.
Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C.
Big W for President Trump in the Supreme Court today.
We're expecting a good ruling, but there's a lot more to come because, folks, the world is in flames.
Bidenomics is a complete and total disaster, but it cannot and it will not ruin my day.
You know why?
That's because I start my day with a hot America First cup of blackout coffee.
This coffee is 100% America and 0% anything else.
Blackout Coffee is 100% committed to conservative values from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping.
They embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality.
Look, when Tanya Tay makes mine, she made it this morning.
It was absolutely fantastic and I know it's going to be a good day when I'm powered by Blackout Coffee.
So go to BlackoutCoffee.com and use promo code POSO20 for 20% off your first order.
Valentine's Day is coming up, and I gotta say, folks, forget the flowers and the chocolate.
Get that special someone the gift of being awake, not woke, with Blackout Coffee.
That's blackoutcoffee.com slash poso.
Blackoutcoffee.com slash poso.
And again, promo code poso20.
Roger Stone is our guest.
He's breaking this all down for us.
Now, Roger, today was a good day.
Today was a great day for the president, and I think that conservatives should be happy and celebrate your victories.
Take your W's, as they say, as the kids say online.
But at the same time, I don't think this was a case that anybody was really losing sleep over.
And that's not just because we're using my pillows every night.
It's because that these were spurious arguments, and they've always been spurious arguments.
But there will be other cases that come up, not just the presidential immunity case, but even the January 6 question.
It's indirect, and I don't believe that the judges, I would be shocked if the justices ruled on the question of insurrection in this case.
It seems that there are many off ramps available to them.
And so, Roger, as we look ahead, what are some of the things just on the lawfare perspective here that the president and his team should be watching for on the horizon?
Well, as you know, Jack, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and a group of other august lawyers and law school professors filed an amicus brief with the U.S.
Supreme Court in which they argued that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was in itself illegal because Mr. Smith had never had his confirmation, had never had his appointment confirmed by the U.S.
Senate and had never been and was not at the time of his appointment.
A U.S.
attorney, which they argue absent a particular special counsel law that lays out criteria different than that, that his underlying appointment is illegal.
Now, I'm very familiar with this argument.
One of the witnesses in my case, or one of the would-be witnesses in my case, Andrew Miller, did not want to testify.
He raised this article.
He litigated it.
Separate from me.
The trial judge, of course, ruled against him.
Then he took it to the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
They also ruled against him.
The time really ran out.
He could have taken it to the Supreme Court, but he would have done so while incarcerated because the trial was upon us.
In the end, of course, when he was ready to testify, they never called him to testify.
Now, what surprises me is Meese's document is extremely well-reasoned, well-written.
On the other hand, there's no obligation on the part of the Supreme Court to hear it.
And I would have thought that Trump's lawyers would have filed this action, if not in D.C., where the courts could rightfully say, we've already decided this in the Miller case.
He could certainly preserve the argument in Florida.
Now, maybe they still plan to do that.
I don't know.
I'm not a party to their legal strategy, and as you know, I'm not a lawyer.
But it would seem to me that that would be an argument that is worth making.
I don't know how it would be adjudicated.
Having read it, it appears to me that they are correct.
That, of course, would end both the Florida and the DC indictments against Trump in both The document case in the January 6th case.
So it's hard to understand what's going on there.
Time is running out though.
Something I'm going to be watching very carefully.
Well, of course, the Jack Smith case we've seen take a lot of twists and turns.
He's had his own issues in the court.
There was a ruling just down in the Florida case today, essentially, that he was trying to keep the witnesses sealed.
He was trying to keep evidence sealed.
That he lost with Judge Cannon.
The question, though, and you were talking about this a little bit before the break in the past segment, I'd love to get into, because the question really does come down to deadlines.
And we've actually seen in the latest deadline outlook, as pertains to the January 6th case, so this is the DC case, the J6 case, this is the one with Tanya Chutkin, there is a possibility where the case could begin somewhere towards the end of summer, there is a possibility where the case could begin somewhere towards the end of summer, early fall of 2024, where the president is on trial during that final
And we're hearing this because I watch the left, and this is something that Roger Stone always told me to do, keep an eye on what Andrew Weissman and MSNBC are talking about, because that's what will happen next.
I think you're right in your interpretation that that's now their best case.
And remember, they wanted to try Trump in January.
to essentially be their October surprise late October, right before people to go to vote on November 5th.
Do you view this as a potential challenge for the president?
I think you're right in your interpretation that that's now their best case.
And remember, they wanted to try Trump in January.
So just to review this, it took special counsel John Durham five years, five long years, to conclude that there was no Russian collusion, no collusion between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign.
He had to wait until the statute of limitations had run out so that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and Jake Sullivan and John Brennan and James Comey and Andrew McCabe and others, Peter Strzok, were not prosecuted.
So he ran out the clock to make sure nobody would be held responsible.
He also, while he completely debunked the authenticity of the Steele dossier, which we already knew, and he documented the fact that the FISA court had been purposely misled, he actually never addressed the question of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, which the government and the Democrats have alleged Was the target of an online hack, which they have no evidence whatsoever of.
In fact, all of the forensic evidence is completely to the contrary.
As you know, Jack, I was not allowed to raise that issue in my defense, even though I could have provided forensic evidence and expert testimony could have proven that.
And they're used to operating in secret.
So when I went to trial, I couldn't have the CrowdStrike report.
It was sealed and denied to me.
I couldn't have the government— By the way, I should mention, seeing as we know that, of course, everyone's in high anticipation of this Tucker-Putin interview, which will be coming out later this evening.
We're planning on doing a live watch of it.
Do you think that's something that Tucker might ask?
I certainly hope so.
I mean, I've read snippets of a transcript.
I don't even know if that's real.
I do recall something I read where Tucker asked Putin directly whether he interfered in the election.
He said, we don't need to bother.
What you people don't understand is it doesn't matter in your country who wins.
The same people remain in charge.
A lot to that, unfortunately.
Indeed.
No, that's certainly something.
And he said that before on other occasions, that there's no need to.
U.S.
policy doesn't seem to change.
When you look at these cases going forward, and I think this is right, just from a political perspective then, of course, the country is basically saying, or I should say the Democrats really are putting all their chips on this.
They know Joe Biden's a loser.
They know this guy can't run on his record.
They know they're trying to, you know, resurrect the abortion issue, trying to put that on multiple swing states, really try to drive that in the rust belt.
But they sort of have this idea that if President Trump is convicted in one or any of these cases, that that is going to shift the race.
At this point, do you think that there's enough credibility in any of these cases that a conviction would actually carry the day for them?
So far, you'd have to say no.
I mean, it's counterintuitive, I recognize, but let's be clear.
The more heavy-handed they are in these cases, the more that the possibility that the conviction doesn't hurt him.
So let's look at the Florida documents case.
They're basically saying, we want to put Trump on trial for retention of documents, but we can't tell him or you or the public what those documents were.
That's basically what they're saying.
How can any American look at that and take it seriously?
I mean, that will be seen as exactly what it is, a hit job.
So the more heavy handed, the more draconian they are in denying Trump his rights and denying all of his pretrial motions, which I guarantee it will certainly happen in D.C., I I think the greater the chances are that he could actually be convicted, people see it as outrageous and political, and they vote for him anyway.
I think that's entirely possible.
It's a little too early to say that definitively that is what will happen, but I think that is a very real possibility.
You know, and this is something that I think of as well, because when I look at the, and I remember the Ron DeSantis campaign, the late, great Ron DeSantis campaign, they pinned their entire hopes on the idea that if Donald Trump were convicted, that voters would reel from him, they would recoil from him, they might embrace a sort of Trump-lite type figure.
It was the exact opposite.
They got the psychology of the American voter and really the psychology of Americans completely wrong.
Their political instincts were in fact the opposite of what happened because it was a rally around the leader moment when originally was Alvin Bragg up in New York, a case that nobody even really seems to talk about anymore.
And then down in Florida and then all the rest of them and we end up with With Big Fanny Willis down in Fulton County, and we're coming up on a quick break, Roger, but the idea for me that one of these things is not already baked in.
I just don't see it.
I think there's enough people out there who say, I don't like what the government's doing to Trump, or there are people who say, I don't like Trump and I want to get him no matter what it is.
I don't think you're going to change anyone's opinion on Trump.
Where's Jack?
whether or not one of these cases come to fruition.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't fight them, by the way, but I just don't think the political calculus is that high of a percentage.
Now, again, when we're in some of these states that really matters, every vote counts.
It is a marginal race, but I don't think this is the key path to victory for the Democrats.
Stay tuned.
One more block with Roger Stone.
Where is Jack?
Where is Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys and these are the guys should be getting policies.
Jack so we back live Washington DC final block here with Roger Stone.
Roger, we were just talking about the political calculus on this and, and I, I just think it's baked in.
I think it's baked in.
There are people who like Trump.
There are people who hate Trump and there are going to be people.
And if there are any in the middle who, who are looking at the situation.
I think it's to your point.
I think the heavy handedness of the way the government has operated through this is to their detriment.
It is not going to help them because the American people don't like being told who they can and can't vote for.
I think that's exactly right.
Look, the heavy handed tactics that were used against me are what brought my case and the outrageousness of it to the attention of Donald Trump.
In the end, it's why I was pardoned.
He saw through what they were doing to me because That never allowed me to put on any defense at all.
I will say this, though, Jack, and that is, if the election is close, and it will be close, and if those on the left intend to try to steal it again, one way to explain the fact that they went into election day trailing in the polls, but there was some mysterious result, Joe Biden won half the swing states, would be to say, oh, well, it was the last minute conviction of Donald Trump that moved the election.
I'm not saying that's a reality.
What I'm saying is that's a rhetorical device, that it's a false narrative that they may think about utilizing at the end of the race to justify yet another effort to steal the election, you know, in the various states.
I read on the Gateway Pundit the other night, for the first time ever, I read a, you know, kind of a step by step of what happened in the Detroit Counting Center, which I'd never read before.
And it outraged me anew.
I had no idea what they were doing was so egregious and so obvious.
You know, Roger, speaking of the conduct of our elections, we know and I think that most Americans now agree that there were some issues with that 2020 election.
And the more you look into it, the worse it looks.
But the question that I have, and a lot of people have, is whether or not the Republican Party is ready for the next round of this, this ballot-focused type of election.
And currently, the chair of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel, Ronna Romney McDaniel, has this huge question over whether or not she will remain in her position.
Of course, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan reporting that she does intend to resign after the South Carolina primary.
President Trump had stated that he will make a decision after the South Carolina primary.
There's a huge chatterbox that's been opened up now, a huge Pandora's box over who might take that title and as well, denials from her, not completely on record, but from what I hear, she's been telling people that she intends to stay and of course put out a statement therein. she's been telling people that she intends to stay and Roger, what is going on at the RNC?
Well, first of all, it's important, Jack, to recognize that Ronna Romney McDaniel is a historical figure.
She's the first Republican national chairperson to preside over a losing presidential campaign and to stay on for another term.
That has literally never happened in the entire history of the Republican Party.
By tradition, it is the nominee's prerogative to name the national party chairman, and the party chairman does not have to be a member She seems to be falling upward.
In other words, how many disastrous election cycles do we need to have before we can recognize that she can't do the job?
Now, here's why it's important.
Under the law, the Republican National Committee can do certain things In coordination with the presidential candidate's campaign that can only be done by the national party from a legal and financial point of view.
So it's important, first of all, that the party have, you know, filled coffers.
Nobody wants to give money to the Republican National Committee under the tutelage of Ronna Romney, McDaniel, because of her track record, number one, of losing.
And, of course, she raised some $200 million for election integrity, but she evidently didn't spend any of that money on election integrity.
Where was the effort to go into the various states to change state election law back to what it was pre-COVID?
That never happened.
Where were the funding for the audits?
The audit, for example, in Arizona, that was privately funded by General Flynn, working with a group of others who went and raised the money for that.
That should have been a function of the Republican National Committee.
Fundraising is abysmal because nobody has any confidence in the chairwoman.
Then when you start looking where they did spend money, on limousines, on flowers, on five-star resorts, on private jets, Even in comparison with the Democratic Party, it's embarrassing.
We're not spending the money to win elections.
We're spending money to have the chairwoman and others there live in a certain lifestyle.
It's not a good use of political money.
Now, I don't know who would succeed her.
Recognize how Insular the Republican National Committee is.
First of all, the committee members all believe the chairperson and co-chairperson should be a member of the committee.
That's not an absolute necessity, and it's certainly not a requirement.
Now, in the end, if the president names his choice, I'll support his choice, whoever it is that he names.
But I would suggest that what they ought to do, perhaps, is to look at the model that was used by Richard Nixon, who appointed U.S.
Senator Bob Dole the head of the party, appointed Thomas B. Evans Jr., later a congressman, as the co-chairman, but actually the operating officer ran the day-to-day party.
I could see someone, this is just off the top of my head, Laura Trump would be an excellent party chairwoman, or Eric Trump would be an excellent party chairperson.
Just just two off the wall ideas.
But again, I don't know what the president's plan is.
I haven't been told.
I'll support whoever he supports.
But this is a vital job.
And if we don't build some confidence in the committee, then the committee will be unable to raise the money necessary.
Now, in terms of being ready for Election Day, I'm not counting on the National Committee.
I'm counting on the Trump campaign.
That has to be funded by the National Committee.
It can legally, election day activities, legal and technical, can be funded by the National Committee, but I think they have to be driven by the Trump campaign.
And I've said this before, I'm a veteran of 13 national presidential campaigns, going all the way back to Richard Nixon.
This is, without any question, the best, the most well-planned, the most data-driven, the most effective The most disciplined presidential campaign I have ever seen.
And it shows.
It shows in Iowa.
It shows in New Hampshire.
It's going to show tonight in Nevada.
It's going to show in a few days in South Carolina.
And then it's going to show on Super Tuesday.
So I don't think I know.
There is a plan.
There is a working group within the Trump campaign working on an election integrity plan.
But that's still going to have to be funded.
By the RNC.
And we have to see how this plays out.
I hear the same thing you do.
Maggie Haberman is very well connected.
She's got great sources.
She has written that Ramna is leaving.
I hear Ramna is telling people privately that she's not.
Not for the record.
Let's see how this plays out.
I predict you in the end that Haberman will prove to be right.
Roger, that's just about enough time for us here.
I know you've got to run.
Where can people go to follow you?
Where can they get into the Stone Zone?
I appreciate that.
You can see the Stone Zone every day at Rumble.com slash Roger Stone.
Rumble.com slash Roger Stone.
We're on at 8 o'clock p.m.
Or you can go to stonezone.com where you can also watch The Stone Zone, but you can also listen to my WABC radio show in New York.
That's on the site.
Also, you can go to wabcradio.com.
And of course, if you want to get your Roger Stone did nothing wrong t-shirt or your signed Roger Stone paperweight or any of my books, you can go to the store at stonezone.com And God will bless you for it.
All right.
God bless, Roger Stone.
Godspeed to you as well.
For folks out there, and of course, people remember the great Nixon and JFK episodes and specials that we have done with Roger, make sure you go and get his books that will explain the details of everything you thought you knew about those cases.
Stay tuned.
A little more coming up here on Events Daily.
I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Tucker Carlson, he's what's called a useful idiot.
I mean, if you actually read translations of what's being said on Russian media, they make fun of him.
I mean, he's like a puppy dog.
You know, he somehow has, after having been fired from so many outlets in the United States, I would not be surprised if he emerges with a contract with a Russian outlet because he is a useful idiot.
He's a useful idiot.
He's a useful idiot.
Well, I apologize to the audience for not providing a trigger warning before showing the Hilda beast there.
We really do have to ask a question, ask a lot of questions about what to do with these people like Hillary Clinton, but not just Hillary Clinton, also the neocons who are all attacking Tucker Carlson for just being this evil.
Despicable, angry, resentful, traitorous, treasonous individual for sitting down and having a conversation with a world leader.
What should Tucker's punishment be, do you think, if we ask these people?
Should he be drawn and quartered?
Should he be strung up?
Should he be machine-gunned into a ditch?
Perhaps roundhouse kicked into a trash can?
Trapped in quicksand?
Stir-fried in a wok?
I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure what will convince these people.
Because you've got people on the left and people on the right.
We call them the neolibs and the neocons.
The people on the left, and there's a difference between the types of anger at Tucker Carlson right now, and I would like to announce that we will be doing a super stream tonight.
Myself and the ThoughtCrime gang, we're going to be doing tonight when the Tucker episode drops.
What we did was sort of a programming announcement.
We sort of did this on the fly.
We dropped ThoughtCrime an hour early, or I should say a day early this week.
Because we knew that Thursday, when we normally do ThoughtCrime, would be a pretty big night.
Historic night.
Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin interview dropping.
So we decided instead we did Thought Crime Wednesday and that we would come in and do a live watch along with the Tucker Carlson interview where we can we can pause.
We can add commentary, whatever you like.
So if you want to get into that watch along, we're going to be doing that exclusively on or I should say, no, it's not exclusive.
No, we're going to be doing it on a rumble and I'm going to attempt to bring it on X as well later tonight when the episode comes out.
We know 6 p.m.
Eastern is when that at that episode is intended to come out.
And here's what it comes down to, folks.
You've got the neoliberals, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland.
Remember, Hillary Clinton was intrinsically linked to the Maidan coup, the overthrow of the duly elected president of the, not the United States, but the president of Ukraine, President Viktor Yanukovych.
That was 10 years ago this month.
I believe next week is the actual 10th anniversary of the overthrow.
Talking to Rahim Kassam, we might be doing a little something special about that because he was actually there in Maidan when this all happened a decade ago, a full decade.
That's how long this has been happening.
Immediately after that, of course, Putin went in and connected the annexation of Crimea.
That's what kicks off this entire series of events.
So, Hillary Clinton was a huge part of this, and her leave-behinds like Vicky Nuland and others at the State Department, Vicky Nuland and her cookies, the color revolution dominatrix there of Vicky Nuland, who of course was just in Ukraine.
By the way, in Ukraine as well, we know that today there is breaking news that actually happened even after the interview was taped between Tucker and Putin, so they won't be able to mention this, I'm sure, but that Zelensky, who was the general of The Ukrainian military, very popular within Ukraine, has been fired, summarily fired, by Zelensky.
General Siersky has been appointed as his replacement.
There's a huge instability going on right now in the Ukrainian military.
We're not sure whether or not Zelensky and his supporters are going to retaliate in some way against Zelensky.
I've been saying for a long time that Ukraine is At the precipice of a military coup right now, Zelensky is hanging by an absolute thread.
Him summarily firing the head of the military is a huge, huge issue for them.
Obviously shows that their war effort is not going the way they want it to.
And of course, the Ukrainian parliament, the Vokablerada, Just passed earlier today a new conscription bill where they plan to conscript, press into service up to 500,000 more Ukrainians, men and women.
I'm not even sure where they're going to find them because they've pretty much run out of substantial numbers of military age males at this point.
So on one end, you've got the neolib, like Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, Tony Blinken, Biden, others, Obama's kind of in this stripe as well, where they want to continue the process of globalism.
But at the other end, you've got neocons.
Neocons are a problem.
Neocons deserve to be bullied, and hopefully neocons will eventually be summarily removed from the America First movement.
There's nothing There's nothing more opposite than America First than being a neocon.
It's as simple as that.
These countries all around the world are not part of the United States.
Ukraine is not part of the United States.
Israel is not part of the United States.
Mexico, China, Taiwan, all of these countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc.
They're not part of the United States.
And so when it comes to our dealings with these countries, we must decide what is in the best And most opportune interest of the American people.
And right now, what's best and of the most opportune interest, by the way, the Senate, the Senate just went and passed the foreign aid bill.
It's passed.
It's already passed.
It's already out.
62 votes.
All right, they got all the votes they needed from the Democrats.
This thing passed.
It's going through.
We'll see what happens in the House.
We have a huge fight going on, right?
And the fight is whether or not we're going to secure our border versus the borders of other countries.
And it's simple.
If you're America First, that means you support that.
And you support America subtracting itself and extracting itself from this globalist system.
We are not the world police.
We're not going to run around conducting these wars of adventure anymore.
I don't care how much you want it.
I don't care how many Zelinsky t-shirts you want to sell on your websites.
No.
We're done.
We are unplugged.
The American people are rising up and the American people are standing up for their system of government because they want a government like the one Bukele just delivered down in El Salvador.
Lock up the criminals and put the rights of honest citizens first.
And if you do that, you will see Bukele just got the largest landslide in elected government history. 85%!
Possibly higher once results come out.
It's as simple as that, folks.
Law and order.
Lock up the criminals.
Stop getting involved in these wars overseas.
Neocons get the boot.
You're getting the boot.
So Tucker, Godspeed to you.
Understand he's left fresh already.
Stay safe.
Ladies and gentlemen, be later.
▲
Export Selection