Roger Stone confronts his conviction as a "deep state coup," contrasting his treason and fraud charges with the unpunished lies of officials like Comey and Barr. He details a biased jury selection, alleging police brutality during his arrest by 29 FBI agents, and rejects prosecutor Jeannie Rhee's plea deal to avoid jail time. With legal fees exceeding $2 million, Stone argues his prosecution is politically motivated, while Buck Johnson's clip underscores broader concerns about authoritarian overreach and government lockdowns. Ultimately, the discussion frames Stone's trial as a symptom of systemic intelligence abuse rather than genuine criminal liability. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Welcome to Part of the Problem00:01:52
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gas Digital Network.
Hey guys, today's show is brought to you by the Death to Tyrants podcast.
The Death to Tyrants podcast is a hardcore libertarian and cap podcast out of Austin, Texas, hosted by longtime musician and libertarian Buck Johnson.
Buck played drums with the great Jimmy Vaughan at many of the Ron Paul rallies back in 2008 and 2012.
He's been a libertarian for two decades.
He comes from the Rothbardian, Misesian wing of the liberty movement, as many of us do as well.
And he's had great interviews with Lou Rockwell, Tom Woods, Jeff Dice, Scott Horton, Mark Thornton, a lot of the best ANCAPs out there.
It's an excellent podcast.
I have agreed to do it.
We're going to set that up soon.
He's a huge proponent of secession, decentralization, and regularly discusses these topics.
Death to Tyrants drops every Monday and can be found on any of the podcast platforms out there.
And you can find it at death to tyrants.libson.com.
Check it out.
It's one of the best libertarian podcasts out there.
And we're going to play a clip from the show at the end of today's episode.
All right, let's start the show.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host.
James Time.
Hey, what's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I'm very happy to have back with us on the show Roger Stone.
Mr. Stone, thank you so much for taking the time out.
Great to be here.
Roger Stone Returns for Watergate Talk00:04:20
After being unconstitutionally gagged for 16 months, I've got a lot to say, and this is a great place to say it.
I would imagine you do.
So as viewers and listeners of this show know, probably the story that I've spent more time covering than any other story has been the attempted deep state coup against President Trump.
I think it's possibly the biggest story in my lifetime and one of the biggest stories in the history of the country.
And the coup attempt against Donald Trump on one level failed.
They did not remove him from office.
However, they did successfully box him in and dominate the narrative for the first three years of his presidency.
And they did successfully target and ruin a lot of people.
And you were one of the people who was targeted in this broader coup attempt.
And so, of course, I know you were under gag order, which I do not understand how in the United States of America a judge can tell someone that they can't speak, quite literally.
So, yeah, please let us know what's going on with you currently and what can you say now that you haven't been able to for quite a while.
Great.
Well, let's take it from the top.
First of all, your analysis of what has transpired here is exactly right.
I, of course, was there during Watergate.
I went to the Watergate grand jury as a witness at age 19.
I witnessed the mainstream media hysteria about Watergate, the greatest constitutional crisis in our history, and so on.
What we're seeing now pales in comparison to Watergate.
Let's just review the facts.
In Watergate, there was never any evidence that the President of the United States himself knew about, condoned, or approved or ordered the break-in in the Democratic National Committee.
A small band of misfits who had former intelligence service ties broke into the Watergate and placed bugging devices which never actually worked and never collected any information of any real value.
And they were caught.
There's a lot of evidence that they were set up.
In other words, certain law enforcement agencies knew in advance that the break-in was coming and were poised to arrest them.
We've learned so much more since Watergate.
We now know that of the eight burglars, three of them were still on the CIA payroll at the time of the break-in, most likely tipped their handlers as to what was going down.
The CIA wanted leverage on Nixon because, good God, Nixon was for peace.
He negotiated the strategic arms limitation agreement with the Soviets.
They hated that.
He opened the door to China.
They really hated that.
He ended the war in Vietnam.
There goes our money-making opportunity.
They had expected him to be a super hawk, and in fact, he was committed to peace.
So they had a great motive for getting rid of him.
And Watergate provided that.
But this was a small band of private citizens.
In this case, we have something far more insidious.
This is the illegitimate use of the full power and authority of the federal government and the incredible capability of our intelligence agencies to defraud the courts in order to spy on the Republican candidate for president, the president-elect, and then the president of the United States.
It is without any question the biggest scandal in our lifetimes.
Yet when the Attorney General Bill Barr comes out after the declassification of all these documents that essentially prove that everything that I just said is true, he says, well, there's no intention to pursue justice against Obama and Biden.
During Watergate, the leftists told us over and over again, no person is above the law.
Okay?
What about them?
Why are they above the law?
It's now abundantly clear that this goes all the way to the top.
Indictment and Lies in Congress00:02:28
It's not just Comey and Brennan and Clapper and Rice and Powers and others, Strzok, Page, and so on, Rosenstein.
But it goes all the way to the top.
And it's sedition.
It's treasonous.
It's an illegitimate abuse of power for which it remains to be seen whether anyone is going to ever really be prosecuted.
We seem to have two standards of justice.
Let's take my case just for example.
Well, we know that James Comey lied to Congress.
We know that Clapper lied to Congress, multiple occasions.
We know that Brennan lied to Congress about spying on a Senate committee looking into torture.
We know that McCabe lied to Congress.
Strzzok lied to Congress.
Page lied to Congress.
Rosenstein lied to Congress, said there was no counter-terrorism investigation into Donald Trump.
That was a lie.
Mueller himself lies in his testimony, saying that the court had not instructed him to step down on the Russian troll farm case when that wasn't true.
Yet none of these people have been prosecuted.
And in every case, the things they lie about are significant.
They're material.
They're consequential.
In my case, after leaking for over a year, Roger Stone will be indicted for treason.
Roger Stone will be indicted for conspiracy against the United States.
Roger Stone will be indicted for laundering millions of dollars in foreign campaign contributions.
Roger Stone will be indicted for cyber crimes, including unauthorized access to a protected computer, receipt and dissemination of stolen data.
Roger Stone will be indicted for wire fraud, mail fraud.
Roger Stone will be indicted for being an accessory after the fact to a felony.
Roger Stone will be indicted for aiding and abetting a felony.
Lo and behold, after telling a federal judge all of those things in order to get a search warrant, and then having done an entire proctological legal examination of every square inch of my life, all my emails, all my texts, all my phone calls, all of my paper records, and having essentially dragged 19 of my current or former associates in front of the grand jury,
The Crime of Supporting Trump00:04:50
they found evidence of none of those things.
After searching my house for 13 hours, trashing it, just taking things, pull out a drawer, dump it on the ground, go through it, walk away, take every book off the bookshelves, thumb through it, throw it on the ground, they found no evidence whatsoever of any of those crimes.
So then they manufacture the crime of lying to Congress.
They do this, again, by breaking the law.
They share the fruits of my emails with Adam Schiff in order to fashion gotcha questions, none of which are relevant, none of which are material, none of which hide any underlying crime, but are enough for them to fabricate an indictment.
And as for the witness tampering charge, it's ironic.
The guy they accused me of tampering with is the guy who threatened to shoot other witnesses in this case in the head if they contradicted them in their testimony before the grand jury, and he did it in writing.
So, you know, it's a frame job.
And then I was, as you probably know, subjected to a Soviet-style show trial in which the judge won't allow me any powerful line of defense.
So, for example, unlike General Flynn, I am specifically prohibited from raising the misconduct of the special counsel, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any member of Congress in my defense.
I'm specifically prohibited from proving using forensic evidence and expert testimony that the DNC was never hacked by anybody, never mind the Russians.
The underlying premise of my entire indictment, but I'm not allowed to disprove it.
Needless to say, I'm also not allowed to argue protective, pardon me, selective prosecution, the fact that Mueller, Clapper, Brennan, et al. lied, but they weren't prosecuted and that I am being prosecuted.
I was not allowed to argue that over either.
So it would be kind of like going into a prize fight, a boxing match with both hands tied behind your back.
And then, of course, there is the makeup of the jury.
Not a single Republican, not a single Trump supporter, not a single military veteran, not a single Catholic, not a single African-American male, not a single blue-collar worker, nobody with below a college education, but a majority of the jurors with post-college education, at least of them, at least three of them attorneys, and a number of veterans of the Obama and Clinton administration,
not as civil servants, but as political appointees.
This is supposed to be a jury of my peers.
It doesn't sound like it.
We actually had a donor to one of Donald Trump's 2020 opponents on the jury.
And as everybody now knows, the jury four woman who outed herself on CNN, Tomika Hart, was posting anti-stone and anti-Trump social media postings on Twitter and Facebook in 2019, beginning on the day I was arrested and continuing.
Now, the judge insisted that her anti-Trump sentiments were not enough to disqualify her as a juror.
And she may legally, that doesn't make sense to me, but she may legally be correct.
But her attacks on me by name most certainly demonstrate bias.
Although the judge says that it didn't in her rejection of our motion to vacate my conviction and give me a new trial.
So I have appealed this unjust conviction.
I've also separately appealed the judge's ruling that I wasn't entitled to a new trial based on egregious juror bias.
I frankly think if these ever get to appeal, if I ever live long enough, that I will win on both cases.
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious to me that the crime that you committed, the crime, was being an influential supporter of Donald Trump and quite possibly also having written a lot about the crimes of the Bush family, the crimes of LBJ, and you were somebody who they wanted to make an example out of.
You know, it's the idea that, I mean, look, I'm a libertarian.
So to me, the idea that lying to the government is even a crime, even if you intentionally lied to the government.
Prosecutors Abuse Their Power00:15:17
I mean, you're lying to what, the professional liars?
They lie to us.
It's all they do is lie to us.
It's literally their job description.
But it does seem that, as you mentioned with Nixon, that the reason that the establishment turned against Nixon was that they thought they could count on him to be a war hawk.
And it turned out he actually had some impulses to go in a more peaceful direction.
Well, this is exactly the problem that they had with Donald Trump, is that Donald Trump was running.
And this has come out.
I mean, everything about this being a deep state coup is just the more evidence comes out, the more it's proven beyond any doubt.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Quip.
This is the best electronic toothbrush I've ever owned.
It's not just an electronic toothbrush.
It also helps you develop good habits.
Good habits matter, and Quip makes it easy by delivering all of the oral care essentials you need to brush and floss better.
The Quip electric toothbrush has timed sonic vibrations with 30-second pulses to guide a dentist-recommended two-minute routine.
There's even a size-down version designed for kids.
So basically, it lets you know when to switch quadrants that you're brushing.
So you get a nice even brush.
You're not underbrushing where you leave plaque behind, and you're not overbrushing where you end up damaging your gums.
Paired with Quip's anti-cavity toothpaste in mint or watermelon, you get all the ingredients teeth actually need and none that they don't.
Quip also has an eco-friendly refillable floss with the dispenser you keep for life.
They've got everything you need.
Join the over 3 million happy customers and practice good oral care easily and affordably with Quick, starting at just $25.
They send the stuff right to you.
It makes it really easy.
If you go to getquip.com, that's G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com slash problem right now.
You'll get your first refill free.
That's your first refill free at getquip.com slash problem quip, the good habits company.
All right, let's get back into the show.
But they even said it.
Even Susan Rice in her closed-door testimony that's been released now said, she goes, you know, what really made her suspicious of Flynn was that Flynn said, you know, I don't really think we have to be hostile with Russia.
So that's proof that he must be in bed with Russia.
And Donald Trump said, why can't we just get along with Russia, pull out of these pointless wars in the Middle East, and, you know, we could work together and have a good relationship.
And it seems like this is what it was all about.
And to have someone like you who had written about the crimes of the Bush family, the crimes of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Clintons particularly.
And right.
Yes.
My book, The Clintons War on Women, I think is the triggering event here.
Let's examine who the prosecutors are in my case.
The woman heading the prosecution into me is a woman named Jeannie Ree.
She previously represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the missing emails case, representing the foundation.
And in that case, she actually lied to a federal judge about how many emails there were and whether they had all been turned over to the government.
So it's kind of ironic that she would be prosecuting me for lying when she lied to a federal judge on a significant matter.
She's also given the maximum campaign contribution to both of Hillary's presidential campaigns.
So she's clearly a partisan.
In no way can you say that she's a non-political career prosecutor.
And then there's Aaron Zelensky.
This guy is an extraordinary, he kind of reminds me of Blutarski in Animal House.
I mean, except for he went to Yale.
He's a pompous, arrogant bully, threatening people.
I am the government, he said at one point.
This guy defrauded the government in the Papadopoulos case.
He also defrauded the government in my case.
He's got formal complaints at the bar and at the DOJ coming.
This guy's abuse of his position is extraordinary.
But where did he come from?
Formerly deputy counsel to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
Not a prosecutorial job.
So when the mainstream media keeps saying the non-political career prosecutors in Stone's case resigned when they were overridden on their sentencing recommendation, these are all partisans.
None of these people meet that description, with the exception of one.
And frankly, he was the last one to sign on.
And I think he felt enormous pressure to do so.
But he also has some misconduct issues, in my opinion.
This is a runaway situation.
The recommendation by the four prosecutors handling my case of a seven to nine year prison term includes the claim that I aided and abetted a foreign power to interfere in our election.
It's in their memo.
I wasn't charged with that.
I wasn't convicted of that.
That is simply false.
They also want to give me additional time for things I wasn't charged with or convicted of.
For example, I wrote a book called The Myth of Russian Collusion.
The foreword of that book is very critical of the Mueller investigation.
It was published on February 9th.
You look on the Amazon site or Barnes Noble, that's the date listed.
The gag order was put in place February 12th.
Ergo, it does not violate the unconstitutional gag order, but according to their sentencing memo, it did.
Let's give him an extra six months.
It's almost Kafka-esque, the inaccuracies in that memo.
And then they blindsided their superiors who expected something more based on the guidelines in the three to five range.
Let's remember, I continue to maintain that I am not guilty and will fight all of this to the bitter end.
But so then they resign in protest to create a media conflagration.
They didn't resign in protest.
They rise, resigned because they were about to be fired because they lied to their superiors.
You can pick apart their memo.
They want to charge me with crimes that I'm not guilty of.
Everybody remembers the famous dust-up regarding an image that I posted on Instagram that created a media frenzy where people said that Stone placed a crosshair over the judge's face.
Well, first of all, there's nothing over her face, but second of all, the image they refer to has the logo of the organization that created it, and it is not a crosshair at all.
I actually have two affidavits from witnesses who went to the grand jury to whom prosecutor Michael Mirando said, Let me read exactly.
We knew it wasn't a crosshair the whole time.
We knew it was the logo of the organization that created the image.
Wow.
So that whole thing was phony.
It's a perfect example of how they had to justify the gag order.
You hit this right off the top.
Nowhere does it say that if an individual is accused of a crime, criminal or civil, that they lose their First Amendment rights.
And the argument that if Stone is allowed to continue to post on social media, it would taint the jury is laughable.
What about the Washington Post?
Are they tainting the jury?
They're the dominant newspaper where the jury pool was selected from, and they vilified me with false information every day.
How about CNN?
Do they taint the jury pool?
So it's, and she provides no evidence.
You know, in court, evidence is possible.
Here's what I know.
If you go to Google Trend, the only time the number of people looking up my name spikes is when the judge attacks me from the bench.
So I would argue she's the one who was tainting the jury pool.
But when you look at the makeup of the jury pool, it didn't need any tainting.
They're Trump haters from the get-go.
And I don't think they're fans of Roger Stone either.
One of the things that's really just sickening about the current culture in America in 2020 is how gleefully people want to ruin other people who have political differences from them.
And you would think that, you know, people like people on the left would be outraged at the idea.
I mean, I thought their whole thing was like nonviolent, victimless criminals shouldn't be getting these harsh sentences, yet they see someone like you, even if they don't, even if they're going to say, well, he didn't forget this thing, he lied about it or whatever.
For the crime of not telling the truth, you get a SWAT raid with very conveniently, CNN just happened to be right there that day.
You know, just happened to pop by Roger Stone's house the morning that he's getting a SWAT raid over a nonviolent crime.
And then they're advocating that you get originally, didn't they want like close to a decade in prison?
Seven to nine years.
Let's go through this.
To violate the False Statement Act, one must have both intent and it must be material.
So I argue that I didn't lie about anything.
Nothing I'm accused of lying about meets those two criteria.
Had my case been tried in a different jurisdiction, it probably would have been dismissed.
But if it hadn't been dismissed and I didn't have all these limitations on my defense, I probably could have been acquitted.
It's an extraordinarily weak case, particularly when you consider they predicted all these other heinous crimes, treason, conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, mail fraud, and so on.
Secondarily, as far as the CNN rate of my home is, this is police brutality.
Right?
Police brutality.
29 heavily armed FBI agents show up at six o'clock in the morning in 17 armored vehicles.
There is an FBI helicopter overhead.
Two amphibious units with frog men pull up to the dock behind my house because they live on a canal.
They completely surround the house.
They bring a battering ram up to the front door as if they're going to have to break it in.
They have these really vicious looking dogs on leashes.
And this is for a nonviolent white collar process crime, which normally you would simply contact the defendant's lawyer and he would come turn himself in.
They spoke to my lawyer on the phone the day before my arrest.
I would have voluntarily turned myself in, but instead we had to put on this show.
It cost the taxpayers, based on a source in the Miami FBI office, $1.1 million.
And CNN's claim that they just happened to be there, that they arrived 14 minutes before the FBI, which would make this the shortest stakeout in American journalistic history, is a lie.
And we know that because a CNN reporter contacts my lawyer at 6.05.
I'm arrested at 6 a.m.
She contacts my lawyer at 6.05.
She emails him a draft of my indictment.
It has no court markings on it, no time stamp, no PACER markings, but it does still have the meta tags telling us who wrote it.
One, Andrew Weissman.
Now, how does she have an advanced copy of a document that is still sealed and doesn't get unsealed until 9.30 that morning by a federal magistrate?
She is therefore in possession of a sealed document and she's sharing it.
That's a crime.
But it proves that CNN knew in advance about my arrest.
And their ridiculous narrative that it was all based on a journalistic hunch is just nonsense.
No one in their right mind believes it.
But on top of that, I live on a dead end street.
The street was sealed.
At the end of the street, by that time, the FBI caravan had created enough attention.
There are other media outlets being kept outside this perimeter.
Why is CNN being allowed to stay there?
If you look at the security tape from my home security cameras, FBI personnel walk up and talk to the CNN crew several times, like they are coordinated.
Yet my neighbors are told, stay in your house, it's a dangerous situation.
Well, if it's so dangerous, why is CNN allowed to stay out there?
The idea that the White House Correspondence Association, these elitist snots in the fake news association, are awarding CNN for getting an illegal tip is pretty extraordinary.
I say that because at the same time they issued a warrant for my arrest, they also issued a search warrant for my home.
The leaking of the government's plan to execute a search warrant is a felony because if the person to be searched knew in advance, they would obviously destroy any evidence.
So who committed the felony?
Who at the FBI?
Who in the special counsel's office?
Who in CNN is in on this felony?
To this day, the FBI will not turn over to Judicial Watch the email traffic between the FBI and CNN in the days and weeks before my arrest, even though they have a legal obligation to do so.
What are they hiding?
It was shocking that they would proceed in this manner.
They march me out in the street to stand in the cold barefooted.
I'm wearing a Roger Stone did nothing wrong t-shirt because never miss an opportunity for promotion.
And they take my wife, they march her out in the street, barefoot in her night clothes, make her stand 10 feet away from me.
We're both at gunpoint.
We both have guns pointed at us.
What's her crime?
What crime was she accused of?
This is all meant to, I think, scare us.
It didn't.
At least it didn't scare me.
My wife still has nightmares about it.
She wakes up looking down the barrel of two guns.
She doesn't know whether we've had a home evasion.
She's hard of hearing.
So without her hearing aid, she's essentially deaf.
She hadn't heard me being arrested.
She heard none of this commotion.
She doesn't know whether this is a home invasion.
She has no idea what it is.
And then they handcuffed me.
Of course, I'm handcuffed behind my back.
And I say, as I have a right to, I'd like to see the charges against me.
And they said, well, we'll show them to you in the car on the way to booking.
I say, okay.
I said, I'd like to see my lawyer.
They say, well, we're trying to contact your lawyer to have us meet us at the FBI booking station.
So we get in the car.
They give me this flipped notebook and I look at the charges and start laughing.
Arrest, Perjury, and Financial Squeeze00:07:35
Lying to Congress?
Really?
That's it?
Where's the conspiracy against the United States?
Where's the Russian collusion?
Where's the WikiLeaks collaboration?
Where's any evidence that I knew about the source or the contents of the WikiLeaks disclosures and gave them to the Trump campaign?
That's what the media said you all had.
Where's any evidence of a real crime?
At that time, I, of course, thought that I was going to get a fair trial.
That time, I thought I could be acquitted.
Little did I know that this would be wired start to finish.
We didn't even have random selection of the judge.
I had to go before this particular judge because they claimed that my case was related to another case in which they accused Russians of hacking the DNC, a case that has never gone even to the discovery phase, a case that will never be heard in court, a case which I think is a fraud, actually.
And therefore, I have to be before their hand-chosen judge, who has also been the judge in the Manafort matter.
And I believe she's now the judge in Peter Strzzok's lawsuit.
How convenient.
Yeah, no, it certainly does.
Hey, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Yo Kratom, home of the $60 kilo.
This is for fans over the age of 21 who already use Kratom.
If you're under the age of 21 or if you don't use Kratom, just disregard this.
But if you are over 21 and you use Kratom, you might as well go to yokratom.com to get it.
You're going to get a better price.
It's the only place to get the $60 kilo, and they deliver it to you.
So you don't have to drive around and look for some gas station and try to find it.
These guys are one of the biggest Kratom wholesalers and they've created yokratom.com so you can buy directly at incredible prices.
YoKratom.com, home of the $60 kilo.
All right, let's get back into the show.
You know, I think the best description that I've heard for our current legal order is anarcho-tyranny, where there is the heavy hand of the state for people who should never be prosecuted.
And then the people who deserve to be prosecuted get, you know, let off completely scot-free.
And you think about some of the crimes that happened under the Bush administration and under the Obama administration.
I mean, the people out there protesting police brutality or the legacy of which I certainly am against police brutality.
But there's active slavery going on in Libya right now, and nobody seems to be interested in holding anyone accountable for that.
Thank you, Hillary Clinton.
Thank you.
Well, right, yes, right.
Hillary Clinton, who was, you know, Hillary's war, as they were called, they were prepared to run on that until it didn't go so good, and then they didn't want to talk about it anymore.
But yet, Julian Assange, who this whole thing started in relation to, he's done the best reporting of anybody.
And look at what ends up happening to that guy.
Look what happens to you.
And yet, all of these people who are involved in this conspiracy, and I'm not, this isn't like a you know, a conspiracy theory in the derogatory sense of the word.
I mean, Andrew McCabe said, he said, we discussed invoking the 25th Amendment.
We thought about every way we could try to get Donald Trump out of there, and we settled on the special prosecutor.
This was clearly, they've told us.
Chuck Schumer said the deep state has six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
This was all laid out on the table.
All you have to do is listen to the people and they'll tell you what was happening here.
But, you know, none of this really seems to matter.
It seems like the real criminals never get in trouble, just like, you know, as you mentioned before, Clapper.
I mean, there's an open and shut case of perjury with an underlying crime.
Not like lying about whether we are collecting metadata on the average citizen.
That's a serious issue.
Yes.
So, where is he now?
Just to be clear, he's teaching ethics at Vermont College and he's getting, I don't know, $350,000 a year from CNN to go on the air and lie.
You couldn't write this stuff in a novel.
No, no, you really like if you put this, if you put this in a novel, they would be like, okay, this is just too cartoonish.
You can't have that character go start teaching ethics.
But this is the reality that we live in.
But now, given the situation, you're to report to prison at the end of this month.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
It appears, we'll know tomorrow formally that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia are not inclined to extend my surrender date beyond June 30th.
So, in other words, just to put this in context, there are different rules for Michael Avenati and Michael Cohen than there are for Roger Stone.
At 67 years old, I'm certain, and with certain underlying health conditions, I'm certainly highly susceptible to COVID-19.
But those guys are under home confinement.
They won't even consider that.
I need to be sent to a prison because I'm so dangerous.
I just got off a conference call with my lawyers to try to determine what action, if any, we can take.
But it's just another demonstration of the unequal treatment of those who support the president and those who oppose him.
Attorney General Barr has laid out in writing the way the incarceration of non-violent crimes or criminals are supposed to be handled in this period.
Evidently, I am exempt from those particular regulations.
So we shall see.
I don't expect the date to be stretched beyond June the 30th.
I've been very forthright about the fact that I hope the president will come forward with clemency on the basis of both mercy and justice.
You know, I have a 72-year-old wife with rheumatoid arthritis.
She can't, we've lost all of our assets.
Yeah, one of the first things they do in these situations is destroy you financially.
So by gagging me, they take away my ability to make a living because I write and speak to make a living.
And the things that people want me to write and speak about are the very things that I'm prohibited from discussing.
So, and the legal fees are, you know, in excess now of $2 million.
So I've lost my home.
I've lost one of my two cars.
My car I'm driving now is 15 years old.
I have to share it with my wife.
I've lost my insurance.
I lost my savings.
I never had any real estate or stock portfolio to lose, but I'm technically indigent at this moment.
I own these books, which probably wouldn't sell for much, and the clothes on my back.
But that's about all.
I had some nice jewelry, rings, and watch chains and stuff.
I had to sell all that stuff to pay my lawyers.
So they squeeze you financially.
And then, really, the whole reason for this became clear on July 24th, 2019, just about a week before the Mueller report was released, when Jeannie Ree approached my lawyers and said that if your client Roger Stone was ready to confess, if he was ready to come clean,
Drug War and Political Confession00:14:30
if he was ready to re-remember the content of some 29 phone calls between he and candidate Trump that we have records of, not recordings of, but records of, all of which were longer than a half an hour.
She said there are other calls, but they're much shorter.
But if he were willing to tell the truth finally that these were about Russia and WikiLeaks and coordination, well, then we would be maybe be willing to recommend to the judge that he serve no jail time.
Now, we can't guarantee that the judge would take our recommendation and sentencing is not up to us, but we might be willing to make that agreement, to which I said no, because it would be a lie.
I don't know any derogatory information about Donald Trump.
And the testimony of convicted liar Rick Gates and convicted liar Michael Cohen, notwithstanding, I never spoke to Donald Trump about WikiLeaks or Russia on any occasion, period.
There is no evidence other than the lies of those two gentlemen, which are completely uncorroborated.
They can't even seem to get the date straight.
They can't remember the date this happened, but they're sure it happened.
In one case, Gates says, I couldn't hear the conversation from where I was seated, but I'm sure this is what it was about, please.
So, you know, I'm in this position.
I'm looking at four years in jail, although I honestly don't think I would last four years given COVID-19, because I refuse to lie.
Not because I refuse to tell the truth, but because I refuse to lie.
At the end of my trial, the judge subjected me to a 45-minute diatribe in which she just attacked me relentlessly and personally.
And among the things she said were interesting, there was nothing phony about the Mueller investigation.
Really?
You've been convicted of covering up for Donald Trump.
Not one of the charges, not what I was convicted of.
You're belligerent and you revel in your lies.
Really, I never testified in my own trial.
So on what do you base that?
It just goes on and on and on.
The truth matters.
Well, she's absolutely right.
The truth does matter.
And the truth is, she was biased from the beginning.
And the truth is, you have a crooked main juror.
And the truth is, you denied us every reasonable defense.
Yeah, the truth does matter.
And the truth is, this was a kangaroo court.
And my appellate lawyers are stunned at the things that were done at trial by the prosecution.
And there are legitimate misconduct charges against some of the prosecutors.
And if you know me, I will never stop fighting.
I will never admit to a crime that I did not commit.
I'm being persecuted because I'm a 40-year friend and loyal supporter of Donald Trump.
And by the way, I'm a libertarian too.
That doesn't mean I support 100% of what he does.
But I must tell you this: his instincts on war and peace are absolutely right.
We should be out of Afghanistan, out of Syria, out of Iraq.
We don't belong there.
We've spent millions of dollars, billions of dollars at this point, and American blood in foreign wars while our own infrastructure at home is collapsing.
And Donald Trump may be the greatest builder in American history.
If there's one man who could rebuild the American infrastructure, it would be him.
So I think he has solid instincts when it comes to building your military strength as a deterrent, not as a tool to go around the world looking for trouble.
The Bush-Clinton policy, where we stick our nose all kinds of places where we have no inherent national interest.
And, you know, I think that he, I'm very happy about the Second Choice Act.
If there's one issue between he and Joe Biden that I think should be highlighted is the fact that Joe Biden is the father of the turbocharging of the war on drugs.
Sure, the war on drugs starts under Richard Nixon, and it's maybe his greatest, biggest mistake.
I'm not a hypocrite.
I've written it in two books and numerous articles, and I've highlighted it in speeches.
It's a failed policy from a social point of view, from an economic point of view, from a rehabilitation point of view.
If you're a conservative, you've been paying billions of dollars in taxes to incarcerate people who are not violent criminals, who are no danger to society.
So the war on drugs under the Biden bill, as he used to proudly call it, the 1994 crime bill, is the law that requires the harsh mandatory penalties where a judge has no discretion for the first time nonviolent crime of possession of small amounts of drugs.
Joe Biden has incarcerated more black people than anyone in America, other than perhaps Bill Clinton, who signed the law.
This is an ignominious, racist failure.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, pioneered the legislation that has given these people who are trapped in the bowels of our penal system with no hope of ever emerging a second chance at life.
I'm not talking about releasing rapists and murderers and arsonists and armed robbers.
I'm talking about people who were convicted of the nonviolent crime of possession.
The housewife who supports three kids and gets caught with a quarter of an ounce or less in her purse.
So Joe Biden needs to be made to wear that.
And Donald Trump should be lauded for his position.
He should actually expand it to the extent that is possible.
I'm not for the release of violent criminals.
That's not what we're talking about.
But the war on drugs is a failure.
And if you go back and look at some of Biden's rhetoric on the Senate floor when he's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and therefore responsible for this bill, this is his bill.
That is a great comparison that voters have to make.
Yeah, he was very proud to own being a co-sponsor on that bill for a long time.
I don't think with the Black Lives Matter protests, he's going to be running on that.
But it is ironic to some degree that if you look at Trump and Biden's record on criminal justice issues, Trump is far better.
And, you know, he listened that I would have liked to see that first step thing go a little bit further, but he saved a lot of people's lives who didn't deserve to have their life ruined.
And I hope he does the same for you.
I really, I root for him to give you a part and I hope he does.
Well, first of all, I give his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, enormous credit for getting behind the Second Chance Act.
Kim Kardashian deserves credit too for bringing the issue to his attention in a riveting way.
This is something I argued with him about for many years.
I think he's done something great here.
Like you, I'd like to see it carefully expanded, but it's a step in the right direction.
And Obama could have done this.
He had a Democratic Congress.
In fact, let's get right down to it.
Obama could have legalized cannabis or at least taken it off the Schedule I list for cousin Hamal.
But he didn't do it.
Why not?
Maybe this president will do it.
Remains to be seen.
He's always taken a state's rights position that it's up to the states.
If the states, he himself is not for legalization, but if the states want to legalize it, that's their right.
It's up to them.
I think that's a sound position because where are we today?
38 states?
It's going to be 50 eventually.
I think we all see that.
It's certainly safer than, say, opioids.
It's helped more people than opioids.
Yeah, no, absolutely, for sure.
And I think the other really important element of the whole war on drugs is that, listen, I mean, look at like the war on drugs.
And as you said, POT certainly is healthier than opioids, but people are still getting heroin.
People are still getting all of this stuff.
All you do by making these substances illegal is you empower the gangs, the cartels.
You allow them to make all of this money.
Look, I don't really want anyone doing heroin, but keeping it illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.
We still have tens of thousands of people dying every year from this stuff.
And the truth is, the best thing to do to undercut the cartels.
Donald Trump is very concerned, rightfully, about the gang activity coming up from the Mexican border.
The best thing you could do to undercut all of that would just be to legalize all of the drugs.
Let people who have problems deal with it.
It's a psychological issue.
It's not a criminal issue.
It's a mental health problem.
So I completely agree with you on that.
I know your time is limited these days, so I don't want to take up any more of it, but I just want to know if people wanted to help you out.
I think you have a website for your defense fund or your repeal.
Different things you can do if you wish to help.
First of all, I have to finance an appeal.
I may have to finance an emergency motion before the court to try to extend my surrender date because of my concern regarding COVID.
You can help by going to stone defensefund.com.
StoneDefenseFund.com.
If you want to sign a petition to the president urging clemency, you can go to freerogerstone.com.
It doesn't cost anything, but we could use your support.
Almost a half million people have signed that petition.
There's another quarter of a million who've signed at another petition site.
And then lastly, if you want to help us pay for groceries and gasoline for the one car we have left and rent, because things are that destitute, you can go to stonefamilyfund.com.
But most of all, you can pray for us because I will not fold.
I will continue to fight.
And the president has a great sense of fairness.
He really believes in justice.
He has followed this.
He understands that the same people who tried to destroy General Flynn are the people trying to destroy me, are the exact same people who tried to destroy him.
He gets it.
And he's followed my case.
I only know this through his Twitter account, but I am hopeful that he will step in as an act of both mercy and justice.
Thanks for the opportunity to be with you.
Absolutely.
And I agree with you.
I'm also hoping that he grants you a pardon.
I will say that I really think what's happened to you is a horrific miscarriage of justice, but I really do admire your courage.
A lot of men would have lied and ratted and turned on the president in your situation.
And I admire that you didn't.
So thank you so much for taking the time out and best of luck with everything going forward.
Thank you very much.
Great to be with you.
All right.
And thanks everybody for listening or watching.
Have a good one.
See you next time.
Goodbye.
All right, guys.
Thanks for listening to today's episode.
Like I told you at the beginning, we got a clip from the Death to Tyrants podcast.
Check it out and then go check out the podcast.
It's excellent.
Hey, what's up, you guys?
Welcome back once again to the Death to Tyrants podcast.
As always, I am your host and humble narrator, Buck Johnson, coming to you out of Austin, Texas, where, man, it's not here necessarily, but all over the states, it's a wild time right now.
And we're seeing police brutality up in Minnesota.
And we're seeing a lot of people pushing for police action in shutting down businesses and keeping people out of work and economies locked down.
And it's interesting that a lot of people don't see the similarities in those things.
And, you know, you see a lot of the left really upset by a man dying at the hands of a police officer.
And we agree.
I believe that, you know, most libertarians are horrified at what we saw with that cop up in Minnesota.
But it's interesting because a lot of the left are the ones pushing to keep things locked down.
And I think they don't understand that the end game of what they're pushing is the government boot on your neck.
And it's really interesting that once they see it on camera, when a cop's caught doing it, well, then they're horrified.
Yet, how do you think these lockdowns should be enforced?
I've seen leftist friends saying stuff like, why aren't the cops enforcing this lockdown?
There's no point having it if they don't go around and enforce it.
We should have drones flying over and see who's leaving their house.
Well, what's the end game when that happens?
Because what if I own a clothing boutique and I said, I'm not locking down?
The government can't tell me to do that.
This is my property.
It's my business.
And you can't tell me not to operate it.
Well, guess who comes to shut you down, guys?
It's the jackbooted thugs like the one kneeling on the man's head in Minneapolis.
That's the endgame of that political philosophy.
And you know now the left, they're the pro-war faction, along with the neocons, of course, which have basically moved back to the left where they started.
And then they're the ones that question you if you dare, dare speak out against the CIA or the security state, the deep state will call it.
Well, that's treason if you speak out against.
How could you not trust your own CIA?
And then all of a sudden, when a cop's caught doing something horrible, everyone just freaks out.
The left doesn't like that.
Well, look, guys, that's the authoritarian philosophy that you're pushing.
That's what it looks like in its purest form.
And, you know, as libertarians, we're consistently against anything like that, against the war, against the CIA, against the FBI.
I mean, we can narrow it down if you want, against state police forces, against government police forces.
And, you know, once again, I feel like we're the only philosophy that sees this for what it is.
You can't split in fucking half.
Come on, call them the holograph.
But I am the center inside the presenter of life.
You clash with cyanide gas and die fast.
Rhythmical equivalent of solids, liquids, and gas.
We smash in silence with the power of low titans.
But I am the virus inside of the iris of Cyrus.
Subscribe to the Death to Tyrants podcast wherever you listen to podcasts and catch a new episode every Monday.