All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2023 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
57:32
Trump Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Responds to Trump's New Charges - The StoneZONE w/ Roger Stone
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And now, Lindell TV brings you The Stone Zone, with legendary Republican strategist and political icon, and pundit, Roger Stone.
Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents.
He is a New York Times bestselling author, and a longtime friend and advisor of President Donald Trump.
As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues, and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society.
Due to his four-plus decades in the political and cultural arena, Stone has become a pop culture icon.
And now, here's your host, Roger Stone!
Welcome, I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are back on the Stone Zone.
This has certainly been a tumultuous week legally.
First, the prosecutors and the defense in the case of Hunter Biden sought to slide a plea bargain agreement by a federal judge that would have Granted Hunter Biden unlimited and broad immunity from prosecution for any future past crime that he might be investigated over in the future.
That spectacularly failed when a courageous and honest Federal judge asked the right questions.
And then we learned that two attorneys for President Donald Trump met with the officials in Special Counsel Jack Smith's office.
And then later that day, Special Counsel Smith announced an additional, what they call a superseding indictment in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Really a head-spinning week.
This morning, veteran criminal defense attorney and Trump impeachment lawyer, David Schoen, appeared on CNN.
Let's roll that.
A former president railing against the latest charges in this superseding indictment, calling them, quote, election interference at the highest level and prosecutorial misconduct.
So what does the former defense attorney for Trump during his second impeachment think?
Happy to be joined this morning by David Schoen.
David, it's good to have you.
Your words to me, to us, on June 8th, before this.
You do not believe in any way that Trump knew or believed he was doing anything wrong or illegal.
You've read the superseding indictment.
Do you still believe that?
Yes I do, 100%.
And I hope that Mr. Hurd is not a lawyer because he seems to have forgotten about the presumption of innocence.
It's very important that we keep that in mind.
These are just allegations and it's very easy to get a witness to say anything, quite frankly.
We don't know Trump's defense, that's correct.
But these are very detailed allegations.
Documents that they have in the superseding indictment, the prosecutors say that they have about that Iran document about attack plans, that you hear on the audio tape that CNN obtained, that he is showing it to multiple people with no right to see it, right?
With no classification clearance.
You also have surveillance video, it appears, from this.
On page 4, the superseding indictment, the prosecutor has alleged that he attempted to have deleted security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury.
And this allegation is that it happened after the subpoena for that footage.
What I would say is, very importantly, I think, What we have here, let's take for example the alleged deletion of the video.
We have a he said, that not a said, that Trump said.
We have rules of evidence for very important reasons to assure some level of reliability.
Remember, in this process, the government has all of the leverage.
So if a witness, for example, why is it we're seeing now a superseding indictment?
Let's take it back a step.
They just had a scheduling conference with the judge.
The judge ought to be upset.
If the judge wasn't given any warning, there'd be a superseding indictment.
Is this really new evidence, or did they turn the screws to Mr. Tavares, the person who said, apparently, that Mr. De Olivera said this, who said NADA said this, who said Trump said this.
Why is this happening now?
There are a number of things I would say about this indictment.
Why do we see, in counts 32 and 38, allegedly false statements that the lawyers supposedly made, attributed to Trump and NADA, and the lawyers are in charge in the case?
I do think there's a real, this is done for public consumption at a minimum.
This is a real speaking indictment for public consumption.
I'm interested in the fact that Ty Cobb, who is a lawyer in the Trump White House, what he said to Aaron Burnett last night, because he totally disagrees with you.
Here's what he said.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now it will last, the superseding indictment will last to antiquity.
Why do you think he is so wrong?
Why would you be so confident if you were Trump's defense counsel in this?
I don't even know what he means, quite frankly.
I'm actually shocked by President Trump's former...
Look, the allegations are very serious and very detailed.
There's no question about that.
No one can reasonably say otherwise.
What I'm saying to you, it's very important to keep in mind, these are the allegations.
Remember this about Mr. Smith, for example.
The lawyers for John Edwards came in and tried to talk him out of indicting in that case.
He went forward with it.
There's a very interesting article in The Hill that suggests that his evaluation of evidence, both its strength and its reliability, is questionable.
There's a real agenda here, I believe.
And that's why we see an indictment for public consumption like this.
This is an unusual indictment.
Look, if there's an advantage to defense lawyers to have all of these details, you know how to prepare cross-examination now.
But I do think it's unfair to have then a protective order in place so the defense lawyers can't really respond to this in the way that the indictment is read.
I'd like your response to, let's focus in on the charge that was added, charge 32, about the document that is about an attack plan on Iran.
Because here is how former President Trump described that encounter, caught on audio tape, which by the way CNN obtained, we just played it for our viewers.
Here's how Trump described that, tried to defend himself in an interview with Fox News.
There was no document.
That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things.
And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document.
I didn't have a document per se.
There was nothing to declassify.
These were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles.
Prosecutors say now they have the document.
If you're in trial, you see them present this into evidence.
You then listen to the audio tape of Trump waving the document around before all of those people.
How do you defend that?
How is that not criminal, if that's what happens?
Sure, I'd have to know what the source is and the basis is for them saying that that is the document and that there was a document.
Right now, I'd take President Trump at his word, like I'd take any defendant at his or her word, and that's what the presumption of innocence means, quite frankly.
Okay, I'd say Mark Meadows also wrote about the document in his book.
What about, finally, the charges against NADA and De Oliveira?
You think they're being overbearing, prosecutors, here.
Why?
Because they allege Dale Lavera, by the way, the new defendant, lied to them in this voluntary interview.
That he saw nothing after they alleged that he was helping move these boxes around.
Right.
So remember, it's the prosecutors who bring these allegations.
They basically draw it up for the grand jury.
And so they decide who lied and who told the truth.
And often what we see in many cases over many years, including some members of this prosecution team, is that they decide a lie means that the person won't cooperate and give their version of events or something consistent with their version of events.
They have tremendous leverage.
They have all of the leverage in this case.
I'll tell you right now, I've got a sanctions hearing requested against two of the prosecutors on Mr. Smith's team.
Listen, we don't know what's happening until this case goes to trial, quite frankly.
Final question for you is the separate meeting that Trump's lawyers had with Jack Smith's team yesterday on a separate potential indictment that has to do with January 6th and alleged election interference and attempts to overturn the election.
Trump said on True Social, essentially, my lawyers went there and they told the prosecutors this would be bad for the country to bring.
Do you think that's a valid reason not to charge?
I think that's something like a prudential principle of prosecution for them to consider.
I do think, you know, this is where you consider how have we handled situations like this in the past and so on, which I don't think is just whataboutism.
I think it's equal application of the law.
I don't know, quite frankly, why they went in there.
The idea that these two lawyers, Blanche and Lauro, were going to convince Jack Smith's team not to prosecute in the hour that they had to talk to him after months of investigation, to me is either naive or misguided.
And to show your defense would, I think, be particularly misguided.
But, you know, difference of opinion, I suppose.
Different lawyers.
David Schoen, we appreciate the time this morning.
Thank you.
David Schoen, experienced criminal defense lawyer, I believe that rare attorney who understands the overlay of what happens in the public realm, as well as what happens in the courtroom.
I think in my view, the most brilliant political mind, pardon me, legal mind in the country joins us now on the Stone Zone.
David, welcome.
Thank you very much.
Great to be here always.
That was at seven o'clock this morning.
It's now five o'clock Eastern We both put in an extraordinarily long day, but I really appreciate your appearing on the show.
As an attorney who defended President Trump in his second impeachment trial, in your professional estimation, what statutes do you believe the pending indictment by Jacob Smith's office regarding the occurrences surrounding January 6th and the election controversy will be, and explain their significance?
You know, we know about the Target letter that he sent, but I really don't know what he has in mind.
You know, he has in mind now this potentially a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of voters and so on.
What I have said and would repeat over and over and over again is that I believe that if Jack Smith charges insurrection against President Trump, as some commentators have suggested, you know, there's a whole cottage industry of folks run by
Andrew Weissman, Norm Eisen, Joyce Vance and others that prepare these prosecution memos, guiding perhaps Lisa Monaco, the number two person at the Justice Department and Jack Smith on how to proceed.
But in any event, they've suggested, you know, insurrection should be charged.
I think they will rue the day.
It raises all kinds of issues.
I think it certainly would put political speech at risk for every American, certainly every public official.
Forever.
It would raise the question and open the door to speeches made by Chuck Schumer and many others that have literally been read to call for violence when President Trump's speech that they would use as the basis for this insurrection charge specifically and expressly called for peaceful demonstrations and in no way suggested that people should go to the Capitol
And, uh, commit violent acts at the Capitol.
Um, so I don't know, you know, what else they'll charge.
Um, probably, you know, their favorite is some variety of conspiracy, some variety of obstruction.
They've hinted around about intimidating witnesses and that sort of thing.
I think it's terribly, terribly misguided to bring any further charges in this case.
I think the charges that have been brought in the other jurisdictions, New York and Florida are terribly misguided.
And when they said, you know, Uh, that some have suggested it would just further destroy the country.
I said that during the impeachment trial.
We've never seen more divided times since the days of Lincoln.
And the way the other side goes about things, those enemies of Donald Trump go about things, just plays into the hands of all who would suggest that our democracy is collapsing, frankly.
You know, in the Mueller Commission, they picked a whole team of completely dedicated anti-Trumpers.
An investigation by the government is only as credible as the public can have confidence in it.
And public can't have any confidence if you skew the deck from the start.
We saw the same thing in the January 6th commission, a so-called special committee.
It's terrible.
You had a chairman of the committee who sued President Trump personally, saying President Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th.
And that he, this chairman Benny Thompson, was personally injured by it.
How on earth could you then make him the chairman of a special committee to investigate the events of what happened on January 6th and who was responsible?
And you can go right down the line.
Liz Cheney, complete hater, all of the members.
And they violated so many of the rules of the House in that committee.
So why do that?
If you really think you have a strong case that's legally supportable, why not play it straight?
Why put people on Jack Smith's team who have, in my view, a checkered path passed ethically?
I have sanction motions going right now against J.P.
Cooney.
He's a member of the team.
Molly Gaston has been involved in subpoenaing witnesses to the January 6th investigation.
What they did in the Bannon case was abhorrent.
To any set of ethics, lying to a federal judge to get an intrusive order under the Stored Communications Act.
There's no reason you have people like this involved in the investigation of alleged crimes by a former president of the United States.
There's no wonder why at least half of the country is up in arms about this.
And I don't mean that, you know, physically in some militaristic way.
I mean, really outraged by what they're seeing from the government.
And I think they've had enough.
And I think, quite frankly, that Mr. Smith and other prosecutors play right into the hands of those who question the integrity of the system when they keep piling on.
And now you see what it is.
This is a superseding indictment in this case, picking on two employees, DiOlivera and Nauda.
It's just shameful.
Do you think it is possible that the special counsel was well aware of these pending charges against Trump, but elected to release them yesterday to blot out news of the disastrous crash and burn of the plea bargain deal of Hunter Biden in a federal courtroom yesterday?
Well, it's a great question.
The question that there is no one more politically savvy than you.
And naturally you ask it, but other commentators now are starting to ask that question because it's not the first event in one of Mr. Smith's prosecution, in Mr. Smith's prosecution against President Trump, that has coincided with some bad news for the Biden team.
And some have suggested it's to take the tension off of it.
I'll say this.
I think that the federal judge, Judge Cannon, who is a tremendous American, she's the daughter of a Cuban immigrant.
She worked her way up and went to a fine law school, clerked for fine judges.
And has been a career prosecutor.
She's been maligned by many on the Democratic side.
She ought to be outraged, frankly.
They just had a scheduling conference in which the Jack Smith's team argued to her that they should have a trial sooner than the Trump and Naughta team wanted to trial.
Apparently never mentioned anything about the possibility of a superseding indictment.
So I think there are two alternatives.
Either they knew about it then and should have mentioned it.
Or if they didn't, they went back and turned the screws to Mr. Tavares, who's apparently their new witness against the Olivera and about this so-called deletion of a video or wanted deletion of a video.
Something just doesn't smell right here.
Sure, there are superseding indictments in the case.
This case just came out and they just argued at a scheduling conference.
There's already a tremendous amount of discovery, very time consuming.
I believe that this defendant ought to come in and ask for more time.
You were critical of Trump's lawyer's handling of the scheduling conference.
There are obviously Very complicated issues surrounding the protective order and the national security evidence that would be up front and center in this case.
And you said on this program that federal judges traditionally do not want an open ended schedule.
In other words, they're not interested in putting off any trial in perpetuity.
In the end, Jack Smith, the special counsel, originally wanted this case to be tried in December.
Which I find interesting.
It took Special Counsel John Durham five years to determine that there was no probable cause for the appointment of Robert Mueller, no probable cause for the initiation of the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation, no probable cause to justify the FISA warrants that were Used and renewed after they knew that to spy on Donald Trump.
Yet within weeks, literally, or about two months, Special Counsel Smith wants to go to trial.
Now the trial has been set for May.
The trial date has to be viewed within the light of the presidential nominating process.
And when the primaries, caucuses, and convention are, do you think that Trump's lawyers would have been better off to pinpoint a specific date?
And how likely do you think it is now, given the complexity of the trial, that this trial will actually take place in May?
Here, I think, would be my chief criticisms.
First of all, I think it's unrealistic to expect a judge who's under fire like this to base Her decision entirely on, you know, the election process.
It's certainly a factor that has to be considered, but she couldn't do that.
She couldn't make that and avoid the kind of criticism that would have been forthcoming.
I hope she's not subject, not vulnerable to that kind of criticism, but any judge is a person and that's normal.
If they were to, the normal course would have been to propose a full schedule, a schedule with different dates for different kinds of hearings, and then a trial at the end of it.
But if they were to take the position as they took, That we can't set a trial date in this case, which I don't say is unreasonable when you don't know yet how much more discovery there'll be.
Remember, according to the government, there's 57 terabytes of discovery in videotape.
Now, the commonly used phrase is that the entire print collection of the Library of Congress is 10 terabytes.
It may be as many as 17 to 20 terabytes.
They have 57 terabytes just of images.
Here and I can't compare images with documents and so on.
But beyond that, they have hundreds of thousands of emails to go through.
So tremendous amount of discovery.
But perhaps the most important driving factor on scheduling will be the classified information processes.
And that's all laid out by statute.
There are three sections of it, at least sections four, five and six, that will require hearings in this case.
And that's a long drawn out process generally.
If they were to proceed as they did without suggesting a trial date, there was a case readily available to them out of the District of Colorado just from recently in which the court in that case recognized how long and drawn out the classified information process is and said, we can't set a trial date in that case, but what we will do is trigger a trial date until the last motion under SEPA The Classified Information Procedures Act has been decided.
Then we'll have a conference to set a trial date.
If they were going to go this route and not propose a trial date, then why not show her a ready-made vehicle in which a judge has confronted this question and establish that as a guidepost.
We're going to set a schedule, Judge.
We know it's going to be a long one.
But we have to trigger it to when the last motion under the SEPA has been decided.
I think, quite frankly, though, another major concern is that President Trump has a trial in New York with one of these same lawyers, this guy Blanche, in New York.
Now, that case is set to go.
That judge is a very, very strongly anti-Trump sort of judge, and he's going to push it.
So how on earth can they be going to trial in March with all that that requires, we don't know how long that trial would be, and have to turn right around and try this very complex case, and she has certified it as complex, just in May?
I don't think it's possible, and I certainly know it's not fair, but I know that the judge is trying to do the best that she can right now.
Now, the judge in the New York case, of course, made a contribution to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
Uh, which I would think brings into question from the very get go the impartiality of the judge.
Unfortunately, Trump's lawyers did not move to recuse the judge until after the judge had made several adverse rulings to the Trump side.
But this particular judge has a history of incarcerating those who are convicted.
Without also not allowing bail pending appeal, do you think it is actually possible that the New York judge could incarcerate a former president of the United States based on a business records case, which at a minimum should be civil but has now been upgraded to be a criminal trial?
There are so many problems with that case.
First of all, it should never have been brought.
That's for sure.
And you read Mr. Pomerantz's book, the guy who left the DA's office, you'll see that the Principles in that office thought the case never should have been brought.
It's been brought for political reasons.
But yes, this judge, Judge Merchant's reputation is when a defendant is convicted, he locks them up right away.
He doesn't say, you can self-surrender next amount of time.
I'll give you bail pending appeal.
He likes to lock them up and you can be sure he will try to if he can.
And if he gets a conviction, God forbid if President Trump.
However, I do think it's going to be very politically, very Difficult for him to do that, but he's a guy who would consider doing it.
But I think the issue with the recusal motion, not just was the timing, but also I don't think they raised all of the issues that have to be raised.
It's not coincidental that Judge Murchan sat on the Trump Organization case and sits on the Bannon We Build the Wall case and now sits in this case.
And so there are a couple of possibilities.
The reason that's been proffered by the Uh, state officials, is that the chief judge there thought that Murchan was particularly, you know, capable of dealing with it.
And so he hand-selected Murchan for the case.
That's problematic in and of itself.
The other possibility is, which they're certainly going to deny, is that there's a history in the Supreme Court of New York County, uh, unique to that county, in which, uh, the prosecution has had the ability to choose a judge to oversee a grand jury investigation.
And then keep that judge on the trial.
So they would handpick the judge in each case.
They claimed, when that was challenged in federal court, that they had stopped that practice long ago.
But the federal court suggested that had such an issue been raised on direct appeal rather than on a collateral review in federal court, that it raises a real concern about the appearance of a lack of impartiality to handpick a judge like that.
Either way, This case should have gone into the wheel.
There have been, that means a random selection, there have been former prosecutors from the Manhattan DA's office who have said unequivocally the case should have gone into the wheel.
There was a purpose in choosing Judge Merchant and that has to be fleshed out.
In a motion, a real motion for recusal.
I think they also have to file a motion to disqualify the prosecutor.
This is a prosecutor who ran on a platform of virtually guaranteeing the public he would get the conviction, a conviction of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump wasn't even under investigation and he's campaigning on a platform of getting a conviction of an American citizen.
That's completely inappropriate, completely unethical.
But the most important thing in that case, in my view, is He charges themselves.
Remember, this is his convoluted statutory scheme in which they charge a misdemeanor of misstating business records, and it becomes a felony if it was to conceal or commit another crime.
They don't ever identify what that other crime was.
Now, the defense lawyers in the case filed what's called a bill of particulars, asking for more definition, more specifics.
And the state has said, no, they don't intend to provide that, and they don't have to provide it.
But a bill of particulars wouldn't be satisfactory.
President Trump has the right to have had the grand jury decide what crime was committed to make this a felony.
What alleged crime was committed to make this a felony.
So, for example, if the claim by the state is that he misled with business records in order to facilitate election fraud, that would be one line of defense effective.
If it were instead to commit or conceal some tax crime, that's a completely other defense.
It requires completely different preparation, different witnesses, different research.
There's no way consistent with due process that any defense lawyer could defend properly or effectively against the charge without knowing what the target crime is alleged to be.
They have the right to have a grand jury decide that.
And the final point on that is, It also violates the rule against the constitutional provision against double jeopardy.
Why?
Because let's say they go now with a theory at the last minute that it was to commit election fraud.
Well, they could just turn around and charge him with next time around in doctoring up business records to commit some other crime.
And so they have to be able to they have to be required to specify what that target is.
There must be an effective motion to dismiss, frankly, on that issue.
David, I think you would agree that the Department of Justice has used the crime-fraud exception extensively.
To break the attorney-client privilege, more so with Donald Trump's former attorneys than almost any defendant in the history of the country.
With that, do you believe this methodology puts in danger our legal system in general and the success of Donald Trump's defense specifically?
Or as a lawyer in Oklahoma said to me, either the Sixth Amendment is intact or it is not.
What is your opinion?
Very dangerous what's happened here with the Misuse of the crime fraud exception.
There's a judge in DC who's about as anti-Trump as they come.
She was the chief judge, Judge Howell, who ordered all of Evan Corcoran, who was Donald Trump's lawyer in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, all of his records, recordings to himself, so on, turned over.
She decided what might be redacted.
She didn't give Corcoran a chance to argue what should be redacted.
And she did this in sort of carte blanche fashion.
Based on the so-called crime-fraud exception.
It's an exception to the rule of privilege if the lawyer was called upon to facilitate a crime by the client, and that's what's at the heart of the documents and so on.
I think it was a horrible decision.
I think that if Judge Cannon is not intimidated by these calls about bias because she was appointed by President Trump, if she decides as fairly as I believe she will, Then I think the case in Mar-a-Lago has to be thrown out based on Judge Howell's decision on crime fraud exception and the tainting of the entire grand jury process and the indictment based on the use of Evan Corcoran's notes in the case.
And by the way, I think Evan Corcoran is going to end up being a witness for the defense and putting the lie to the government's characterizations of certain things that happened at Mar-a-Lago.
But I think that's a primary issue in the Mar-a-Lago case that has to be Aggressively advocated, but you're right and your friend in Oklahoma is right.
And part of the irony here is they point to a judge in California who in a related case, the Eastman case, found it's very likely that President Trump committed fraud here.
And therefore that case also used the crime fraud exception with respect to Eastman's role as the lawyer.
That's the same judge that the ACLU lambasted and folks on the left lambasted for having A criminal defendant in his courtroom put duct tape across the defendant's mouth during the course of the trial.
But this is the one now they want to credit as being a right judge because he came out with an anti-Trump decision.
So I've read this, although I don't know to be accurate.
Do you think that testimony from the grand jury in D.C.
was read to the grand jury in Florida that brought this indictment?
And if so, what of the grand jury's right, and I think ability, to question the person testifying before the grand jury?
Well, no less a source than the New York Times reported that to be the case.
They said that the grand jury in Florida did not hear live witnesses.
They had testimony read to them.
That's a complete abuse of the grand jury process.
It's true that rules of evidence are relaxed in the grand jury, and often an agent's testimony, random testimony, might be read to them.
But the grand jury needs to have witnesses there.
It's supposed to be an investigative function by the grand jury.
They must be permitted to ask questions.
They must be permitted to evaluate a witness's demeanor, to make credibility determinations.
Now what's interesting is this superseding indictment returned by this grand jury in Florida comes after the fact.
So did they hear live testimony now?
We just don't know at this point, but the lawyers will find out.
It was reported in the media that barricades are being built around the Fulton County Courthouse in Georgia, which would lead one to believe that an indictment may be imminent in that jurisdiction pertaining to the phone call between former President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger regarding the so-called finding of the votes.
I have read this entire transcript.
By the way, it's tedious.
I've also listened to the entire recording.
It's also tedious.
There are six lawyers on the line.
Based on what I heard, President Trump did not tell Raffensperger to go out and find 11,870 voters.
What he told him was, you have inadvertently already counted 11,870 votes that are clearly illegal.
5,000 some odd votes by convicted felons, another 1,100 votes by people who were demonstrably deceased, indisputably deceased, and so on.
Have you read the transcript of the Georgia phone call?
Sure.
You know, as you know, I don't like to discuss particularly what President Trump did do, didn't do, what he thought, or otherwise.
But this is something now that's out in the public domain.
Everybody knows what was said, or anyone who cares knows what was said on the telephone call.
You see, your problem is, though, you're a fair person.
So you read the entire transcript.
You listened to a recording of the entire speech on January 6th.
And so you know what the context was.
You know what he said and what he meant from the words alone.
But that's not what the mainstream media likes to present.
They take snippets.
Same thing with the Charlottesville speech.
And we sort of demonstrated that during the second impeachment trial with audio and video.
Yeah, listen, he had lawyers on the call, certainly had the advice of lawyers at all times.
I have little doubt in my mind that they're going to turn the screws to one or more of those lawyers.
And as I've said many times, government has great leverage.
And when a person is facing the potential of a criminal prosecution, even if not merited, often that person will say or do anything that the government wants that person to say or do.
I think that a, an indictment in Georgia will be forthcoming and I know that it will be completely politically motivated, but the district attorney is running for reelection now.
And I think she believes her constituency supports an indictment in the case.
And after all, she's invested a lot of time.
In this sort of sham civil jury, grand jury that she put together to give herself cover.
We know how that turned out.
We know how fairly they considered things based on public statements from the foreperson of that civil grand jury.
So I think there will be an indictment and I think it will be politically motivated once again.
I think that, you know, the idea is to completely tie up President Trump so that he can't really effectively run for office or so that His opponents, even the primary can say, well, listen, you know, he's so tied up with his, he can't focus on the business of the country.
And I think President Trump has risen above all of that and continues to talk about the issues that are important to the American people from his perspective.
And so that people have a real choice out there and they will have the opportunity to vote for him.
I think that the downside of what they're doing from a fair and objective perspective is that it looks like piling on at this point.
And when you see one after another, after another, after another, it looks like there has to be something else going on here.
The timing is not coincidental during the election season.
And again, while it's criticized as whataboutism, you can look at many other examples that were not prosecuted.
You can look at examples of speeches that were given that were not called insurrection.
You can look at people on the Democratic side, Raskin and others, who questioned the legitimacy of an election when their candidate lost, but there's no consequences for that.
And, you know, all of the charges.
Look at the documents President Biden had without authorization.
And he's someone in the system who would have known that it was illegal for him to have documents if it were in fact illegal.
So it's the equal application of the law that I think people fairly demand.
And that's one of the many reasons I think you see President Trump only soar in the polls when these cases are brought.
It looks like heavy handedness, unfairness, and that's not the American way traditionally.
Yeah, it is counterintuitive, but there is just no doubt.
You can plot it out in a graph.
Every time Donald Trump is indicted, his popularity, the level of support, both among Republicans and among all voters, actually increases.
The intensity of his support increases.
People shift from the likely to vote category to the much more likely to vote or certain to vote category, depending on how the question has been fashioned.
And I note that his campaign has brought in tens of millions of dollars in small and medium-sized donations, which traditionally can sustain a presidential campaign over time.
This is one of the huge disadvantages now of his principal challenger, Governor Ron DeSantis, who almost 80 plus percent of the money he's raised has come in from large donors who have now given The legal maximum and can give no more.
So I would go so far as to say that if the president is indicted in Georgia, which I do expect, and he is indicted in the District of Columbia, regardless of the charge, that he will actually go up in the polls and raise more money, leading to the other question, which is largely one That I'm not qualified to figure out, and that is one of timing.
If he were to be convicted of sedition, I guess it would be, or insurrection, under the 14th Amendment, in a section of that constitutional amendment that spoke specifically to the Civil War, he would be technically unqualified or disqualified from being a candidate.
Is it possible, in your opinion, That a January 6th related trial pertaining to that specific charge could actually get to trial before the November 2024 election.
It shouldn't.
It would be very unfair if it went to trial before then, especially now with these other trials scheduled.
I happen to be of the mindset that while the Fourth Amendment certainly says what you suggested, it would not apply for a president, that the president's qualifications are limited to what Article 2 Says they are, and I think that's supported by cases like term limits versus Thornton and otherwise.
That we look to the Constitution when the Constitution is specific about the president, you know, natural born citizen, resident of X number of years and 35 years of age.
Those are the qualifications and that's it.
I actually represented a candidate in a ballot access challenge in 2020 who ran from prison.
And, uh, just wasn't permitted to be on the ballot for reasons that they, uh, unrelated to that.
And of course, you know, I won the case, um, because the law was clear on that, but no, I, I don't think that's, I don't think that's going to be effective.
I do think one of the reasons they would bring the insurrection claim is a charge would be to try to make that argument that he would be barred from life.
That's why they came up with this cockamamie theory during the impeachment that a person can be impeached even when the president I was finished with serving the term.
I think it was contrary to the language of the constitution and so on.
But your first question really is, could they fairly bring him to trial before the election?
They should not be able to, but you know, you get one of these judges in DC and there's a handful of them who are real Trump haters and they're going to try to do everything they can, I'm afraid to say, because I believe very much the integrity of the system otherwise, but these judges have made terrible, extraneous Comments, totally gratuitous about President Trump.
And I'm afraid they would try to stick it to him and his millions and millions of voters.
That's my fear.
But one thing I want to say is I'm not letting you get away with suggesting humbly, as you do, that anything you predict politically is guesswork.
I don't think, and I think your viewers well know this as do probably everybody else in the country.
I don't think there's anybody in America today who knows more about politics, what drives voters.
And so on, than Roger Stone.
Let's be candid about that, not too humble.
Well, that's very kind.
Let's go for a moment to the Hunter Biden travails this week.
Why do you think the Department of Justice was so unprepared for Hunter Biden's plea deal hearing the other day, when Hunter's attorney was not even aware of their own client's lack of immunity for future charges, evidently?
I think that it was like amateur hour, but I think They would have been prepared if it weren't for people like you and others in the media who have really called them on this, who exposed the kind of immunity this diversion agreement really meant.
And this judge was incredibly heads up.
And she flagged it and highlighted it in court.
Remember, they had said before, sort of loosely, well, there's an ongoing investigation.
Wouldn't say what it was about, but Hunter lawyers, Hunter Biden's Lawyers were unequivocally saying this ended any investigation of Hunter Biden.
How on earth that wasn't settled before they got into a judge is just extraordinary.
Unprecedented in my view, at least, my experience.
So they got there and the judge said, well, what about this provision?
And what about if he had committed a FARA violation or some other violation?
Would he have immunity for that?
And when the government said, no, you know, we're not covering him.
For all future charges.
The defense lawyer, I think Chris Clark is his name, said, well, then you can rip this up or something to that effect.
We don't have a deal.
So they're going to have to go back to the drawing board.
But I think that they, unfortunately, I'm a skeptic, I suppose.
I think that the Department of Justice intended for Hunter Biden to have that kind of immunity, broad immunity, unheard of, unheard of to give immunity for crimes in that kind of, with that kind of broad stroke.
And especially in a deal like this.
Remember, you know, we're talking about a gun charge here, lying on an application for a gun.
There's a Department of Justice press release that I've seen from earlier this same year, emphasizing the seriousness with which this Department of Justice will prosecute gun charges and specifically lying on applications to get gun charges.
And then people who do that will be facing prison time.
Make no doubt about their toughness and commitment to that and so on.
And then you see this.
What's the person supposed to believe in Oklahoma, where this press release appeared that I've seen, but it's on behalf of the Department of Justice.
What should the ordinary folks there believe when they're being prosecuted for felonies and with jail time being sought, doing the same thing or less, what Hunter Biden clearly did?
So you represented President Trump in the second impeachment, quite ably I might add.
Watching the goings on and the revelations in the congressional investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden, do you feel the evidence obtained so far, based on what you have seen, is sufficient to call for an impeachment of our current sitting president?
Yeah, I don't know.
You know, I'm hesitant to say so.
I've seen now a number of authorities.
I thought today, Professor Turley called for an impeachment inquiry.
I think the most anyone could call for is an impeachment inquiry.
I'm not a big fan of the overuse of impeachment.
I personally didn't feel Bill Clinton should have been impeached.
I certainly didn't feel Donald Trump should have been impeached on either occasion.
We see far too often politics infecting this constitutional process, and I'm very wary of that on either side.
So I wouldn't use it loosely by any means.
The problem, many problems with President Trump's impeachment, but in the second impeachment, You know, done in a flash.
There was no hearing.
There was no real discussion about it.
And that was really abhorrent and in violation of the Constitution, any due process considerations.
They argued that due process didn't apply.
I think they're dead wrong.
It must apply.
I think American people must demand that it applies in that process.
You know, some of the scholars are saying, well, impeachment can be, you know, for whatever basis the House says.
We can't have that loosey-goosey process, but Well, Joe, what's coming out so far is very, very, very troubling when it comes to matters of honesty and forthrightness.
And I have to say again, as I've said many times, the courage of these whistleblowers is really extraordinary and should be commended.
One of them, the Ziegler, has a piece in The Wall Street Journal just today talking about his Christian faith background and why he was compelled to put his job at risk to expose the truth.
It's disgraceful.
All right.
We are out of time.
I want to thank David Schoen for taking time from an extraordinarily busy day.
David, thank you for joining us on the Stone Zone, and I want to wish you a very restful and joyous Shabbos.
They ought to be their American heroes.
However, the thing plays out in the end.
All right.
We are out of time.
I want to thank David Schoen for taking time from an extraordinarily busy day.
David, thank you for joining us on the Stone Zone.
And I want to wish you a very restful and joyous Shabbos.
Thank you so much for being here.
Thank you very much.
Always an honor.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that was David Schoen, who represented President Donald Trump.
Very incisive interview about the swirling legal developments in this past week.
Now is the time in the show when I remind you that we are brought to you by the great folks at MyPillow.com.
MyPillow.com generates all the revenue with which we offer you this show five days a week at four o'clock central, five o'clock eastern.
You can go to stonezone.live.
We also ask you to subscribe to To our Rumble feed, the Stone Zone Rumble feed, to watch the show regularly.
But you can watch us on Twitter live streaming, on Telegram live streaming, on Cozy.tv, numerous other platforms.
We really ask you go to Rumble.com slash Roger Stone and subscribe to the feed.
Rumble is a great platform where there is no censorship, where free speech reigns.
We urge you to subscribe to us there.
Now, as for MyPillow.com, please go to MyPillow.com because, well, it's a threefer.
You get to support Mike Lindell, one of the finest Christian gentlemen I've ever met, the ultimate optimist, a true patriot, the number one spokesman for free speech and for election integrity in the United States.
He is also fighting with the FBI to get back his telephone.
He still doesn't know why they seized it, but he uses it to run his multiple businesses.
You can support Mike Lindell by going to MyPillow.
You can support Nydia and Roger Stone.
You can support this show.
When you go to MyPillow.com, please use promo code STONE.
Now a word about the great products there.
Right now the hottest item is the new MyPillow 2.0.
You may say, well I have all the MyPillows I could possibly use.
You don't have this pillow.
This has a revolutionary new technology which makes the pillow cool to the touch at all times.
That means you don't have to keep flipping the pillow over throughout the night to get the more cooler and more comfortable size.
Right now, by using promo code STONE for $89.98 you get one pillow and Mike Lindell throws in a second pillow absolutely free!
Everybody knows my other favorite products there.
They would include the MyPillow Dog Beds, the MyPillow Pet Blankets, The Men and Women's Moccasin Slippers, the MyPillow Throw Blankets, the MyPillow Waffle Blankets, the bathrobes that are now on a close-out sale, the six-piece towel set of the most absorbent, luxurious cotton terry cloth you can get anywhere, Great products, a 60-day money-back guarantee for those items that are not on sale.
Please go to MyPillow.com and use promo code STONE now.
Speaking of stones, let me bring on my adopted nephew Alex Stone for a segment we call the Rolling Stones that we try to do once a week.
Alex Stone, welcome to the Stone Zone!
Roger, thank you so much for having me on once again.
It's always an honor to be on your show.
As you can see, I'm not as well-dressed as I usually am.
I got home just a little bit later than I thought, so I decided I would put on my Stonewall's Perspective t-shirt, some merch for my podcast.
But thank you, sir, so much for having me on.
I'm always delighted to have you.
You are really a great addition to the Stone's Own lineup.
That's why we call this segment The Rolling Stones.
So, what do you want to talk about today, Alex?
Well, it was interesting listening to your conversation that you just ended.
You know, talking about justice and rather the lack thereof in this country.
We don't have due process anymore.
We just decide to Throw things on the wall and hope it sticks for President Trump.
While in the meantime, people like Hunter Biden and Sam Baikman Freed are being completely there.
It's totally fine for them to do whatever they want in the United States of America.
And it's a problem, right?
It's not that the Department of Justice and all of these people, they're throwing things at President Trump because they quite frankly just don't want him to be president again.
Why was he president in the first place and why did they hate him in the first place?
It's because he's someone who stood for the American citizens.
He's not one of these 2000, 2004 Republicans in which he is giving the same old narrative over and over and over again.
No, he came in with an agenda and his agenda was to disrupt and he did exactly that and because of that they are coming back and they're trying to Disrupt him so far.
It has not worked.
I believe he's still going to be the president of the United States I think he will win the next election But it only happens if people get involved at every single level I talked last week About getting young people involved.
I believe that that is so vital for the next election, that young people vote for President Donald J. Trump.
Now in the last week, since we've talked about this, I've met quite a few young people who are actually doing something to save our nation.
Uh, some of their names, which you can follow them on, on True Social, Twitter.
Uh, Brylon Hollyhand, he founded the Truth Gazette when he was only, I believe, 12 years old.
And he's been spreading the truth, spreading, uh, reality with his news organization, the Truth, uh, Gazette.
We need more people like that.
We need more people like myself.
Uh, because if we do not vote for President Trump in 2024, we will lose this country.
I have noticed in a number of national surveys where the methodology is that which I respect, a number of pollsters.
That Donald Trump is doing surprisingly well among younger voters.
So there is actually empirical data that demonstrates that there is great potential there to expand that base.
I think it is based on the concept of economic opportunity.
In other words, these young people want to be successful.
They don't want to spend their entire life as Employees, someday they'd like to be employers.
Whatever your field of endeavor is, you'd like to be successful.
And I think under President Donald Trump and a booming economy, there's some recognition that there's greater economic opportunity.
Do you find that this issue has resonance with people your age?
I think it certainly has.
One of the big lies in the Biden administration is they've continually said how many jobs they've brought back to the United States and how many people are continuing to get jobs.
And while that may be true, what happened in 2020 was people lost their jobs because of COVID-19.
And in 2021, people went to go get different jobs because COVID-19 was no longer the forefront of everyone's attention because they had already stolen the election from President Donald Trump.
I believe that people want to be successful, especially young people.
I know so many people who have entrepreneurial mindsets who are around my age.
They want to live in a successful country and be successful in this country.
And quite frankly, under the Biden administration, that isn't happening.
I see videos all over the place of people.
They will go to interview different people.
Hey, Trump or Biden.
And they will many times say President Trump.
And then the person who is interviewing them will ask why.
And they will respond, well, under President Trump, the economy was good.
These are people who are my age, 19, 20, 21, in that area, and they are recognizing the fact that under Democrat policies, the country is going downhill, and it's going downhill fast, and the only way to pick it back up again is to vote for President Trump.
And we see that in the polls.
President Trump is very clearly the frontrunner.
There is no doubt about it.
And we've gotten to the point where even Vivek Ramaswamy has taken second place in the key state of Ohio.
So President Trump is pulling at 64, Ramaswamy is pulling at 12, and then Ron DeSantis is pulling at 9.
President Trump is very clearly the frontrunner.
He's not going to be stopped.
There is nothing that will get in his way to have people not vote for him.
He will be the nominee.
Now, what we need to do is rally around him so that he will be the next president of the United States.
All right, Alex, I'm afraid we have to leave it there.
Tell people where they can see your show very quickly.
Yes, sir.
Roger, thank you so much for giving me that opportunity.
You can find my show on Rumble.
It is titled, A Stonewall's Perspective.
A Stonewall's Perspective.
I'm on a mission to spread the light of the gospel into every aspect of life.
And yes, I did say every, including the things that people do not like to discuss, such as politics.
A Stonewall's Perspective on Rumble.
You can also find me on Twitter and Truth Social at A underscore Stonewall.
There you go, Alex Stone.
Thank you so much for joining us in the Stone Zone.
Folks, this weekend on Sunday at WABC Radio, I interview Kash Patel, I interview Garrett Ziegler, and I interview Nick Adams, the Alpha... We're back.
I'm sorry.
I was telling you, a WABC radio on Sunday from 3 to 5 o'clock.
I have three terrific guests.
Kash Patel, former Chief Counsel of the House Intelligence Committee, former Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense.
Also, Garrett Ziegler with the Marco Polo Research Group.
Talking about the evidence against Hunter Biden and Nick Adams of the Flag Organization, the alpha male that you're familiar with on Twitter.
It's a great show.
You can listen to it at 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock Eastern by going to wabcradio.com.
We're streaming worldwide.
Check it out.
Until Monday, God bless you and Godspeed.
You're watching Lindell TV. - My employees and I are excited to announce it's our 20th anniversary.
And to celebrate, we're bringing you a limited edition MyPillow.
The Giza Elegance MyPillow is made with the most amazing cotton, 2-inch pipe gusset, comes in four custom loft levels, and it's machine washable and dryable.
When I got MyPillow, I'm asleep almost immediately.
I stay asleep at night, and I wake up more well-rested in the morning.
My patented fill adjusts to your exact individual needs and helps keep your neck supported and aligned.
That's why we've been around for 20 years, because MyPillow works!
Go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to get your limited edition 20th anniversary MyPillow Queen size.
Retails for $69.98, now only $19.98.
That's right, only $19.98!
▲
Export Selection