All Episodes
Aug. 3, 2023 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
56:48
Darren Beattie of Revolver News & Roger Stone on The Deep State’s Attempted Takedown of Pres Trump
| 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 best-selling 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.
I'm Roger Stone, and you are about to enter the Stone Zone.
Let me ask you, who arrests their political opponents to incarcerate them to avoid a competition and an election?
Well, let's see, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and sadly today, Joe Biden.
The American people were subjected to the spectacle of a former President of the United States standing in the dock being charged It seems that we have a two-tiered justice system.
In other words, you can question the integrity or the outcome of an election if you are Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Jamie Raskin or Jerry Nadler or Stacey Abrams.
But if you do that and you're Donald Trump, well, they want to put you in prison.
This is a very sad day for America.
This is the criminalization of constitutionally protected free speech and political activity.
Here is a statement from the president's spokeswoman, Alina Haba.
On March 17th, Hunter accidentally admits that it was his laptop from hell.
The next day, DA Alvin Bragg indicts President Trump.
June 8th, an FBI document is released showing that the Ukrainians paid the Biden crime family millions and millions of dollars.
The next day, the Mar-a-Lago raid and the Mar-a-Lago indictment.
Last week, Hunter Biden's sweetheart plea deal fell through when the judge realized it had blanket immunity.
The following day, a superseding indictment against Donald Trump.
July 31st, Devin Archer goes to testify in front of the House.
That was only after they failed to put him in jail prior to the fact.
What happens the next day?
The January 6th indictment that we're here for today.
On television, and I have seen the reporting from outside the courtroom, Obviously no live cameras in the courtroom, but a blow-by-blow description of a former president of the United States standing in the dock being subjected to this kind of political persecution really turns the stomach.
What are your initial reactions?
Yeah, the spectacle of it is outrageous, although I suspect it will backfire and has already backfired to a degree, but that will continue to be the case because I think most right-thinking Americans understand what an insult and injury this is to any conception of America being a free country, of being an exceptional country, of being a country worth defending and so forth.
You know, when The initial indictment, because now we're up to three and counting.
But when the first indictment came down, which all of these, the audience must understand, are historically unprecedented.
We're in new territory, very dark territory, because as you point out, what this is, is a sitting president using a corrupt and weaponized DOJ to persecute his Presumptive political opponent in an upcoming election.
And so given that context in the first indictment, which is really a ridiculous one related to these, you know, so-called hush payments or whatever, we did a piece pointing out that we're now joining seven other shithole countries, banana boat countries, that have basically had the same practice where the sitting leader would politically persecute their opponent.
And some of those countries were Tunisia, Nicaragua, Uganda, and so forth.
And it's ironic given that Trump was condemned for rightly pointing out the phenomenon of shithole countries.
Well, unfortunately, under Biden, we've become one, officially.
We're officially in that territory, and it's very sad to see because beyond the sort of low-level, sort of whitey-bulger-tier corruption displayed by the Biden crime family, we now see Yeah, it's quite interesting.
political machinations and the total corruption of our political institutions to the level that, you know, you'd expect from a third world banana boat country.
But at least in third world countries, you have affordable costs of living, some interesting architecture, and low levels of obesity.
So we don't even have that.
Yeah, it's quite interesting.
One country that, of course, should be on that list, a country where the political opposition is arrested would be the country of Ukraine, where President Zelensky has arrested the heads of every political party that opposed him in the states that ran against him in the last election.
So when they tell you that the billions that we are shipping to Ukraine is about preserving democracy, let's be very clear.
Ukraine is not in any way a democracy.
Not only does Zelensky harass and arrest his political enemies, The candidates who ran against him outlaws their parties.
He also arrests journalists, shuts down radio stations, television stations, newspapers, and he's closed churches.
In fact, the largest church in the country, the Russian Orthodox Church, is outlawed.
So when they tell you that the billions we are shipping to Zelensky and his dance troupe is to preserve democracy, you know much better.
Let's move to the question of the charges themselves.
Here on the Stone Zone yesterday, we played a 10-minute long video of the complete litany of prominent Democrats questioning the outcome of the 2000 election, questioning the outcome of the 2018 election, questioning the outcome of the 2016 election.
To my knowledge, None of these people have been arrested.
None of them have been charged in a federal courtroom.
What am I missing here?
Well, you're missing the ever critical who whom to put it in Leninist terms.
I mean, of course, you have Democrats challenging question in the election and you know, that's fine.
That's what you're supposed to be able to do in a democratic system is you're supposed to be able to exercise First Amendment protected free speech to call into question election practices and make recourse to legal procedure and proper constitutional procedure to try to correct any abuses that may have occurred.
So this is entirely in keeping with the constitutional order.
What is not in keeping with this order is this new idea that basically, when Trump does it, on very, very legitimate grounds, by the way, but even if they weren't legitimate, it's still First Amendment protected speech.
I don't understand this.
But if you look at the language of the indictment, to appropriate a legal terminology, if you look at the emanations from the penumbras, Because they try to avoid the idea that they're actually criminalizing speech.
But when you look at the spirit of it, when you look at the thrust of it, what it's really doing is attempting to criminalize what we might as well call election denial.
That's what it's all about.
The opening first several paragraphs Don't have to do with any kind of concrete, you know, conspiracy.
They have to do with saying Trump knowingly lied about the election and therefore created an atmosphere of distrust that effectively resulted in defrauding the American people of the election.
So it's really ridiculous.
It's really dangerous.
And it's in keeping with the recent trend of Biden's corrupt DOJ to codify One of the things that did surprise me is I expected the overreach of a charge relating to sedition.
to shut people up on pain of going to prison when the next crooked, corrupt, and rigged election comes along in the not-too-distant future?
One of the things that did surprise me is I expected the overreach of a charge relating to sedition.
I thought perhaps that the trial of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers would have laid the legal groundwork for such an attempted charge.
To my knowledge, it would have to be based solely on speech by President Donald Trump.
But the significance of such a charge is that if convicted of such a charge under the 14th Amendment of the United States and a subsection thereof, President Donald Trump would not be eligible.
Disqualified for running for President of the United States.
That is what this charade is really all about.
In other words, until we know the trial schedule and when this matter will go to trial, or whether the appeals court will even ultimately allow it to go to trial, we have to recognize that the greatest single goal of those who are bringing this action is to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.
If he was re-elected, then pardon himself for all of these crimes.
In fact, I believe a legal argument could be made that he could even pardon himself for crimes that are anticipated that he committed by his critics, but for which he has not ever been charged.
I point out to you that President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon at a time that Nixon had not been charged with any crime.
He specifically said he was pardoned for crimes he may have committed.
Now what's interesting is, when Trump was leaving office, and there was speculation in the media, even though the President never said this, but speculation in the media that President Trump would pardon himself and other members of his family before leaving office, perhaps simply because he foresaw all of this, legal scholars like Lawrence Tribe,
Would come forward and say, well, the president's ability to pardon himself is really not proven.
It's legally questionable.
It's a gray area.
But mark my words, when Joe Biden pardons himself and his son and his brother and other key members of the Biden crime family, which I predict, well, then Professor Tribe will have no problem whatsoever with it.
It will be a matter of decided law.
I was surprised that they did not bring a seditious conspiracy or a seditious charge because that, technically at least, if the president were convicted, would get them what they want, which is to get Donald Trump off the ballot.
But you've written and covered more about January 6th than perhaps any other news outlet in the country.
You've had some very groundbreaking stories.
What is your analysis of that angle?
Well, there's a lot to be said here.
First of all, I think it's fair to characterize this latest and most important and critical indictment.
I mean, the others are really trivial by comparison.
This latest indictment really is the January 6th indictment, and in more ways than one.
In fact, the language of the indictment here is basically a copy and paste from the January 6th committee.
And in fact, the Chair of the January 6th Committee, Benny Thompson, who is kind of something of a subliterate, he basically took to Twitter to celebrate and take credit for the indictment, acknowledging, hey, this is basically coming from the January 6th Committee.
So Um, this is very much, uh, in keeping with earlier speculation that the January 6th Committee and Merrick Garland's DOJ were working hand in glove.
And this is what it was all about to begin with.
And of course, Revolver has covered this extensively.
There's a really dark genealogy to the January 6th's theory of the case.
Benny Thompson, as I mentioned, is borderline illiterate.
I don't know if he could read above the eighth grade level.
He's certainly not a legal strategist that would come up with this on his own.
This traces back to a very known And notorious Democrat lawfare hatchet man called Norm Eisen, whom we've covered in a different context in his role as a color revolution professional.
But he's one of the key lawfare hatchet men against Trump.
And he and a lawfare partner were getting involved from the very beginning with these emoluments, cases, and so forth.
And this is the provenance of the January 6 complaint that later became a private lawsuit by Benny Thompson.
And Benny Thompson, who had a private lawsuit against Trump in his personal capacity, that wasn't a conflict of interest.
He somehow became the chair of the January 6 committee that had more or less the exact same finding.
And now that language is further laundered into this sham but very dangerous indictment that, as you point out, is The whole purpose of it is to take Trump off the table electorally, and I think more broadly to basically implement a scorched-earth, salt-the-earth strategy to completely eliminate and neutralize the underlying energies associated with Trump's movement as well.
I suspect you're talking about seditious conspiracy.
I suspect there's a greater than 50% chance that we're going to see a superseding indictment that includes this seditious conspiracy charge in the coming months.
I think that is a strong possibility.
I was slimed by former Attorney General Bill Barr today in the Washington Post, I believe, He said that if Roger Stone and Steve Bannon hadn't said publicly that when Trump loses, he should declare that he won.
I never said anything of the kind.
What I said, I'm paraphrasing, is that if the result was in doubt, if it was disputed, that at that juncture, President Donald Trump should declare victory.
This is, of course, the exact same advice that Secretary of State James A. Baker gave George W. Bush.
This is the same exact advice that Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy gave President John Kennedy.
Both advice they took.
When Richard Nixon gave his concession speech, he didn't really concede.
What he said was, if the current trend continues, it appears that John F. Kennedy will be elected president.
But by that time, John Kennedy, the senator from Massachusetts, had declared victory.
The result was still undecided.
This is before the computer age, by the way.
So, again, I am smeared by those who say, well, Roger Stone knew before the election that Trump was going to lose and told Trump to declare victory whether he lost or not.
That's not even remotely what I said.
But this is not the first time Mr. Barr dissembled.
Perhaps Mr. Barr is feeling the heat because in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, there's a lawsuit which shows, I think pretty definitively, that he had information, that he had Serious evidence of election irregularities, which he entirely ignored.
Or perhaps he's trying to distract from the fact that he knew that Hunter Biden's laptop contents were serious and potentially criminal, and he essentially acted to bury them.
Maybe that's what's on Mr. Barr's mind today.
Let me ask you this.
You make a very good point about the January 6th committee.
Darren, what was your impression of Ray Epps' public testimony before the committee?
Well, this became public a while ago, and we've written on it extensively.
There are a number of take-home points from it, including the fact that Ray Epps is caught in, if they're not lies, they're pretty glaring inconsistencies that seem to defy innocent explanation.
But that's not so much a surprise as the fact that Adam Kinzinger basically bent over backwards to come to Ray Epps' defense.
And in fact, he was more aggressive in his defense of Ray Epps than Ray Epps' own lawyer, who was present at the interrogation.
And of course, I've always stated that Ray Epps and the pipe bomb, these are both the smoking guns of the January 6th Fed's erection.
We see in this culmination point with the latest January 6th indictment against Trump, the stakes involved in this fake narrative that the regime has concocted.
And it's these high stakes, nothing short of taking out Trump and therefore neutralizing the number one challenge to the corrupt filth That's why they've been so vigorous against me.
That's why they've been so vigorous against Tucker Carlson.
That's why to join the New York Times, which did a puff piece on Ray Epps, 60 Minutes, which did a sympathy segment on Epps, and they didn't even allow me to come and Give the contrary point of view, despite the home court advantages that they'd have to splice and dice and edit however they saw fit.
They determined their case was so weak they couldn't even have me on.
Despite 60 Minutes, despite Adam Kinzinger, despite the DOJ's protection of that, there's another one, which is Michael Tater, who is an employee of another disgraced Democrat hatchet man,
Maybe the most disgraced and notorious of all, David Brock, who is now Ray Epps' attorney and is leading Ray Epps in his sort of defamation suit tour, threatening everybody.
Unfortunately, some conservative outlets have already been intimidated.
They have officially sued Fox.
And even though Tucker Carlson and myself are Named extensively throughout the legal complaint.
We haven't been sued yet.
They're probably counting on Fox to settle first.
But they're pulling out all the stops to silence conversation about Ray Epps who anybody can go and look at the compilation video of his behavior, which was considered to be so egregious by the FBI that he was one of the first 20 people on their most wanted list for January 6.
And Ray Epps is not only defended by these institutions, he's not charged.
And they're charging Donald Trump.
I mean, that tells you all you need to know about how dark and how dirty and how fake the Fed's erection hoax is, but also the stakes involved.
They're the highest stakes imaginable.
And that's why the regime is so utterly sensitive to anybody who dares challenge that narrative.
Well, we know that the House Minority Leader's appointments to the January 6th Committee were rejected.
How can you have a congressional inquiry, never mind the bipartisan nature of it, how can you have a balanced congressional inquiry in which every single member of the committee is a known Trump hater?
By the way, I think they violated House rules in the makeup of that committee.
Beyond that, I can tell you firsthand That Cassidy Hutchison actually perjured herself twice in her public testimony under oath when she said that Mark Meadows, the President's Chief of Staff, was told by President Trump to call Roger Stone and General Flynn on the afternoon or evening of January 5th to, quote, find out what would happen on January 6th.
When she was asked, was that call completed, she said, yes, it was.
That's perjury.
There was no such call.
I've never spoken to Mark Meadows on the phone.
In fact, I've never communicated with him directly or indirectly, other than the fact that I met him once in a Fox Green room back when he was a congressman.
I've checked with General Flynn.
He also has never had any communications, including a phone call with Mark Meadows.
Then Cassidy Hutchinson goes on to say that Mark Meadows was going to a War room in the Willard Hotel, but that she dissuaded him from going to that meeting, but that she told him later that he should call Stone and Flynn to get a briefing on how the meeting went.
First of all, if there was any such meeting, I'm not aware of it.
If there was any such war room, I don't know about it, nor was I in it.
By the way, three sources confirmed that to the Washington Post, which to its credit, published that, and no such phone call to me or to General Flynn was ever made.
The January 6th committee presentation is a made-for-television fairy tale that was a precursor to this indictment, an attempt to denigrate the president.
A couple other things I would have to say, and that is almost insufferable, almost impossible to watch MSNBC or CNN.
Michael Beschloss, who calls himself a His historical observations are often factually, completely, and totally incorrect.
But the propaganda level, the sheer hatred, constantly equating Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler, for example, is really almost too much to take.
He's an elitist fraud.
The New York Times continues to quote a former prosecutor law professor named Joyce Vance.
Please label Ms.
Vance as a harsh critic and opponent of President Trump before you quote her.
Don't try to quote her as some honest broker, some former prosecutor who's looking at these proceedings without a jaundiced eye.
She's among those who authored a 45 page, maybe it was 145 page, Memo to Jack Smith laying out exactly how Donald Trump should be prosecuted.
I don't mind partisans, but just call yourself what you really are, or the mainstream media outlets need to identify them as who they really are.
Barbara McQuaid is one of those.
She said a number of things about me during my two-year struggle for justice that were simply factually incorrect, but they constantly identified her as Former Federal Prosecutor.
That's fine, but why don't you say Former Federal Prosecutor and Trump Aider Barbara McQuaid.
I could sit down and do a substack piece on the many falsehoods that she alleged about me.
I might even do that just for the cathartic nature of it.
Let's switch gears here a little bit.
What is your opinion or impression of the news emanating out of the House Republican Committee's investigating Hunter Biden?
Well, I want to get to that, but there are just two quick points.
about the indictment, I wanna stick in here.
- We have plenty of time. - What's that?
- We have plenty of time here.
Great, great.
I was worried you said we're out of time.
But yeah, just two pretty important points about the indictment I just want to bring up.
So I mentioned that effectively the language of this indictment amounts to criminalizing election denial.
And so this is sort of the nuclear device as a matter of federal criminal law in the way that the Dominion lawsuit was at the civil side.
And it's the same approach, just different tentacles of the lawfare creature that has been unleashed to silence any debate about election procedure leading up to our next national election.
And just kind of one of the many ridiculous things in this indictment is they keep on saying that
Trump lied that Trump knew it was false as though Trump actually like privately thought that he lost the election which anybody who's remotely familiar with Trump and his thinking knows is ridiculous that this notion that you know Trump actually thinks he lost but he's just lying totally ridiculous and in order to establish that Trump knew that he was wrong on this this is what's amazing is they said
Trump effectively knew that he was wrong because he had been advised by the Vice President, by senior leaders of the Justice Department, by the Director of National Intelligence, By Department of Homeland Security officials.
In other words, all of the people who are complete snakes who have been doing everything in their power to undermine and sabotage Trump's presidency since day one, including and especially the utter filth and sewage coming from our intelligence community, they're actually saying, we know that he lied because these credible people
From, you know, National Intelligence because the Director of National Intelligence told him so.
So what this effectively amounts to is you're lying to the American people and therefore committing a federal criminal offense of defrauding the United States and, you know, a conspiracy against rights and these other ridiculous innovations.
But you're lying because the hacks at the Department of Homeland Security
CISA, they have the gall to invoke the Homeland Security, Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Security Agency, the very agency that has been exposed and utterly humiliated in the Twitter files, as leaning on big tech in order to censor everything from Hunter's laptop to election material.
If you don't believe these agencies have been demonstrably proven to have lied to the American people and to have illegally used their federal influence to censor, if you don't believe them, you're lying.
That's an amazing thing.
If you actually tease out the implications of it, it's saying that these official government sources, these intelligence community representatives, are so authoritative That if they tell you something, it's so credible that if you don't believe it, you're actually just lying, which is an incredible precedent to establish.
And there's an analog to this, actually, in the legal complaint against Fox News pertaining to Ray Epps and everything.
It's really about Tucker and me, but it's Formerly against Fox News.
In it, they said, Tucker knowingly lied about Ray Epps.
Well, I know Tucker's thinking and, you know, I know my thinking.
Anybody who is a right-thinking person and sees the case of Epps, you don't have to, you know, sees that there's something weird going on there.
It's not as though it's like, you know, you have to lie about it.
It's clear there's something off there.
But they say, but they say Tucker lied Because some corporate hack at Fox News told them it was a conspiracy theory.
So again, it's sort of irrigating this sense of authority to these hacks that lie over and over and saying, if some hack from corporate at Fox News tells you it's a conspiracy theory and you run with it, you're lying because you should trust that person's credibility.
And in the case of Trump, if he goes around and says, look, the election was stolen, the election was rigged, there's all these problems here, it must be a lie because Mike Pence told him.
Because Department of Homeland Security officials told you, this is just, you know, this is just a Russian, you know, disinformation.
And it really is an incredibly insidious and utterly ridiculous
So to put this another way, the institutions who lied repeatedly about Russian collusion, the institutions who insisted that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, the institutions that lied about there being any irregularities or anomalies
In the most recent presidential election, because they insisted the election was lost and you chose not to believe them, you must be lying.
It really does.
I think the Latin expression in the law, mens rea, meaning the state of mind, which in order to convict Donald Trump, the prosecutors will have to prove that they know better than Donald Trump what his state of mind was.
and is.
Now, I wasn't talking to him in that period, but I have talked to him subsequently, and there's no doubt in my mind that he believes to this day that the election was stolen from him.
There's something about dropping 300,000 paper ballots after you have driven the Republican observers from the counting facility at three o'clock in the morning that kind of lends itself to that theory.
There's something about putting up giant pieces of cardboard so nobody can observe what you're doing during the vote count that lends itself to that theory.
There's something about more people voting in the city of Philadelphia than are registered to vote in the city of Philadelphia that lends itself to the theory, or the belief I should say, that this election was not free, fair, honest, and most certainly not transparent.
We've got plenty of time here, and I do want to get to the Bidens, but before we do that, Darren, do you have any further thoughts?
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I'd love to get to the Bidens, but this stuff needs to get out, and I need to get it out.
It's important information.
Another aspect of this is Trump, among the charges that he faces, is something called conspiracy against rights.
Now, This is an important charge because given its precedent, given its context, it's never been used for this type of case before.
In fact, the innovation began with the charges against an individual called Douglas Mackey, who was charged with the same conspiracy against rights.
It was innovative at the time because it was totally divorced from its Historical precedent, but it was used to convict this individual, Douglas Mackey, of a felony for satirical tweets that he sent out mocking Hillary Clinton.
I think you've heard of this case.
There have been a lot of conversation about this case.
Revolver has written about it extensively.
And that was really the first, that was the trial balloon for this overall plan, as I stated, to codify the disinformation scam into criminal law.
This is the same exact charge that they're leveling against Trump.
And in the case of Douglas Mackey and Trump, these are the only two cases in which this particular charge has been used in this way.
It's, you know, the history of the law goes back to the days when the Ku Klux Klan would physically intimidate African Americans from going to the polls.
And that's the sort of interference that was envisaged in the law.
And they say, well, we need when people are being physically intimidated, we need some additional protections.
And so they came up with this conspiracy against rights that later came to encompass things like People who conspire to throw away absentee ballots and things like that.
And the great irony here is, first of all, it has nothing to do with the charges against Trump or against the behavior of Trump or Mackey for that matter.
But additionally, the actual election fraud that took place in 2020 is much closer to the type of behavior that the conspiracy against rights statute Was designed to criminalize.
And so the very behavior of these various governments, the state governments, very behavior of the regime in terms of what they did in 2020, that was much closer to the behavior that this statute was meant to criminalize, that they're now contorting to make it such that they're going, they criminalized, they convicted a guy of a felony for anti-Hillary memes, and now They're leveling it against Trump.
So I wanted to just point that out.
It's a really interesting and important connection because this is indeed a legal innovation and the ultimate design is to make it such that if you're guilty of disinformation, you're just not just deplatformed from all social media, but now you're deplatformed in the kind of enhanced sense of getting tossed in prison.
One last thing on the indictments.
We mentioned the superseding indictment that we both think is fairly likely.
That would elevate it to a level of importance that I'm prepared to make, I would say, it's fair to say, a bold prediction with you right now.
My prediction here is pretty optimistic, I'll admit, but I think that these charges will be tossed out before they go to trial.
I think that if there's an elevation to seditious conspiracy, this will go straight to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will toss it before it goes to trial.
David Schoen, who to my mind is one of the most articulate, brilliant political strategic minds in the country, made a case on this show last week that the qualifications for being President of the United States are completely and totally laid out in a specific part of the Constitution.
But the section of the 14th Amendment that was designed after the Civil War, essentially to stop Confederates, those who had taken up arms against the country from running for public office, would not apply to the president.
I have a huge amount of respect.
I would say two things.
One, normally we would go to a commercial break now for MyPillow.com, but we're not going to do that because I consider the commentary and analysis of Darren Beatty just too good to miss.
So folks, go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Stone.
We're going to continue with this interview.
Let us now finally get to the question of Hunter Biden.
It is amazing to me You saw that litany, that TikTok done by Alina Haba, one of the president's former lawyers and now a spokeswoman, which I think is exactly right.
Every time there is some extraordinarily shocking bombshell about the regime, they immediately trot out a counter-narrative, a fomented news story to try to block it out of the news.
Let's start with this simple one.
How is it possible, Darren, that the U.S.
Secret Service and the FBI cannot figure out who is it that left a small bag of cocaine inside the White House walls?
Well, I mean, I think the fact that nobody was arrested is a pretty fair indication they did find out who it was.
So, I mean, it's just, it's It's common sense.
It's not definite, but I think it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to identify one of the prime suspects here.
But really, I mean, the issue of cocaine just underscores not only the corruption of the Biden family, but how Unsophisticated and low level the corruption is, you know, at least you're going to be a crook, be it, be a great crook, be the Clintons, you know, that when you can, you compare the Clintons to Biden really is just embarrassing, I think, to, to the Bidens.
The Bidens haven't been able to really create an infrastructure.
They're just kind of low level leeches who engage in the most simplistic forms of bribery.
And the most unimpressive forms of degeneracy, it really shows they're taking advantage of the system because of Biden's, you know, half century plus legal career of being a loyal dog to the system.
But they don't run the system.
They're not on the level of the Clinton crime family.
They're not on the level of the Bush's They're expendable.
They're interchangeable, which is why I wanted to bring something up.
And I'm curious about your opinion.
I know you've teased this idea that maybe Michelle Obama will be a factor in the coming months.
I think Gavin Newsom could be a factor.
But it seems like there's a subtext in all of this media coverage of Biden.
And yes, there's a degree to which They want to distract from it, but there's also a degree to which they want to amplify it because that's their leverage over Biden.
They may have to exercise this in order to remove and replace him with a more viable figure as we get closer to the election.
So, kind of curious what your take is on that and what you predict.
You know, politics is ever-changing and events can change your conclusions.
I've been saying for some months that I thought, ultimately, between the weight of the impact of his policies on the country, record gasoline prices, food shortages, 76% increase in the price and cost of basic groceries, ravaging inflation, a crime and drug epidemic caused by open borders, disastrous foreign policy,
In which we look closer and closer to World War III by shipping billions of dollars to a regime that is corrupt at its core.
The danger posed now to Taiwan.
The possibility that we may be going back into the Iranian arms deal.
Now you combine that with Joe Biden's inability to string together a coherent sentence.
We showed a video yesterday Where he's confronted about the testimony before the House Committee.
The poor man looks like he's lost.
He looks like he has no idea what they're talking about.
And now you combine that with the stunning evidence of bribery, extortion, influence peddling, illegal lobbying, money laundering, and let's just say it, treason by members of the Biden family.
I have thought that he would not in the end be A candidate for reelection.
I thought that there were three possibilities.
One, that he would resign early, citing health, but that he would probably not do that because they want to delay the pardon of his son and his brother and other key members of the Biden crime family as long as they can.
When Biden pledges that he will not pardon his son, what he means is he won't pardon him Before the election, that's what he actually means.
That means he would have to hang on through the election.
Therefore, I discard this idea now that he'll resign early, which I thought probable, if not possible, earlier.
I also discard the idea that they may ultimately remove him under the 25th Amendment at the juncture that they wanted him to go, but he refuses to go because, well, Dr. Jill kind of likes the gig the way it is.
And Joe Biden is lucid enough to know that he loses his ability to pardon himself and his son and his brother and others, potentially, the moment he is no longer president.
So I now think that he will not stand as a candidate for reelection.
The filing deadlines for that are not until December when he has to file to be on the ballot in various states, primaries and caucuses.
But I do think within the dynamic of the current Democratic primary, particularly if the chosen candidate is not Kamala Harris and professional Democrats recognize that even though she does not have dementia, she makes even less sense than Joe Biden does, and therefore she has no prospect to be elected president, that they would recruit the most popular Democrat in the country other than Barack Obama.
That would be his wife, Michelle Obama.
She's on the same trajectory as her husband.
She's published two biographies, much of which is fiction, just as her husband published two biographies, much of which was fiction.
She's the head of a non-profit voter registration organization, as was her husband.
She's touring the country conducting voter registration drives, as did her husband.
She could very easily She could raise the necessary funds.
She could raise $100 million literally overnight.
She could certainly come up with the signatures necessary to file for all the early contests.
And if you really want, Darren, the proof that she's running, in my mind, it is her continued insistence that she is not running.
There you have it.
It is her continued insistence that she hates politics.
Really?
Her father was a cog in the daily machine.
She was an attorney working for the Daily Machine.
She basically created a false narrative about her background.
She did not grow up poor on the South Side.
She was not a victim of white flight.
She was one of those people causing black people to be driven out of public housing, to be driven from the city's public health system.
She has victimized black people.
I think there's much in an election contest for Republicans to expose about her in those regards.
What we don't know, and I know you're not prepared to talk about it, but I am a little bit, is the events at Martha's Vineyard on the 23rd and 24th.
Stunning piece in the UK Daily Mail today raising questions about how much we don't know.
How much the Massachusetts State Police And how much the Edgartown, Massachusetts police refused to disclose.
And also the shifting narrative.
They tell us that their chef, who was drowned, and we don't celebrate that in any way, but the chef who drowned in a pond in Martha's Vineyard next to the Obama compound was but the chef who drowned in a pond in Martha's Vineyard next to the Obama compound was with a companion who they identify as a female, but They tell us at first the Obamas were not on Martha's Vineyard.
Then they amend that to say they were on the vineyard, but they were not home.
Well, I've been to the vineyard.
It's very small.
If they weren't home, they had to be within five miles because it's not much larger than that.
Then they told us that the call to police to report the drowning was made from a house four doors down from the Obamas, But now we're being told that it came from the Obama compound.
But unrecorded is who actually made that call.
Now, a number of not conservative, but public First Amendment organizations are raising questions about what is quite obviously a cover-up.
We do not yet have an autopsy.
We do not yet have a toxicology report.
We do know by seeing a video that Tafari Campbell posted on his own Instagram channel that he was a very strong and robust swimmer.
And then there is the question of the depth of the water.
We're told that he was 100 feet offshore and therefore the depth was 8 feet.
The problem with that is By studying the bathymetric system, the bathymetric map put out by the government, you see quite clearly that 100 feet from the shore, the water is only 3 feet deep.
So, a lot of this does not add up.
Does it, in the end, distract from her ability to be a candidate?
That remains to be seen.
This smells to me like a cover-up.
I have a feeling that those questions will never be answered.
I have a feeling that the autopsy and the toxicology report will never come to public right, will not be available in the public record.
That begs the question of why Tafari Campbell, a married man with children, why is he living in the Obama compound?
Where is his family?
There are many questions here which could or could not derail a Michelle Obama candidacy.
Now that's very interesting.
And as you mentioned, I'm not familiar with this Obama story beyond sort of the surface of what the news has reported.
But I want to follow up and ask, so do you think all of this stuff about Gavin Newsom is a head fake?
I'm sure you've seen that Newsom and DeSantis have arranged some kind of debate.
Newsom has been making the rounds.
He's been going on Fox News.
He even set up a Truth Social account.
In many ways, he does seem to me, and I'm not a political expert like yourself, but he seems to me that if I were pulling the strings for the Democrats, running a guy like that, who kind of looks the part and can play the part, and having him read a script that isn't insane and woke, but sort of provides a center-left
Well, I guess I have a couple of observations.
First of all, I don't know that it's possible to nominate a white male in the Democratic primary of today for president.
I do think Gavin Newsom would be an obvious candidate for vice president.
They would be stepping over a woman of color who theoretically, as vice president, seemingly in good physical health, should theoretically be in line for the presidential nomination.
I don't know how they pass over Kamala Harris, who was chosen when Joe Biden pledged to take a black woman for his vice president no matter what, when she's passed over.
Secondarily, when it comes to the debate, Ron DeSantis does not have a great track record in debates.
I thought his debate with Charlie Crist was at best a draw, and Charlie went in with the weakest hand you could possibly have.
A Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican walked into a bar, and the bartender said, Hi Charlie!
So, again, Charlie Crist, a man who was once ardently pro-life, now is for abortion on demand, a man who was once a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Now wants to confiscate our guns.
He actually had the chutzpah to criticize Ron DeSantis for closing down the schools and the restaurants and the beaches here in Florida.
That's pretty gutsy.
I thought that he more than held his own with a very weak hand.
Anybody wants to bother and go back and look at the two debates between Mayor Andrew Gillum of Tallahassee, the Democratic nominee, For Governor in 2018 and Ron DeSantis, I think Ron DeSantis came out second best.
So I recognize the need by DeSantis to energize his campaign somehow because he is falling badly behind.
He's running out of money.
I predict, based on my own calculations, no matter how much he brings down his costs, I think he'll be out of money entirely by October 1st.
So perhaps he thinks that this Public spectacle of a debate with Gavin Newsom will breathe life into what is a dying campaign.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Gavin Newsom is a very smart guy who's pretty fast on his feet.
Newsom's problem, of course, is his record of disaster in California.
He has presided over the destruction of the Golden State, once one of the greatest states in the nation.
Now, you know, basically every major city in the state is an open outdoor toilet.
It is a very real problem.
But we shall see.
I think Gavin Newsom is the obvious candidate for vice president.
And that's particularly because as the sitting governor of California, he has the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds for the Democratic presidential ticket and for the Democratic Party for the next presidential election.
Unfortunately, we have to wrap it up there.
Let me thank my guest, Darren Beatty of Revolver.News.
If you do not subscribe or follow Revolver.News, I very strongly recommend that you do.
It is indispensable when trying to figure out what's really going on in the real world.
Darren, thank you so much for joining us on The Stone Zone.
Thank you, Roger.
Thank you, Roger.
All right, folks, that's it for tomorrow on The Stone Joan.
Jack Posobiec of Human Events joins us for a further analysis of today's events and whatever happens during the day tomorrow surrounding the case, but also for an analysis of the Republican and Democratic presidential nomination contests to date.
You're not going to want to miss that tomorrow, 5 o'clock Eastern, 4 o'clock Center.
Jack Posobiec of Human Events.
He joins us here on The Stone Zone.
Until then, God bless you and Godspeed.
You're watching Lindell TV.
When I invented my pillow, my passion was to help each and every one of you...
And 20 years later, all of your support is what keeps us going.
Because of you, we've been able to create thousands of USA jobs and help millions get the best sleep ever.
To thank you, my employees and I are bringing you a limited edition MyPillow.
The Giza Elegance My Pillow is made with my patented adjustable fill, the most amazing cotton and a two inch pipe cusset.
It has four custom loft levels, machine washable and dryable.
And you get my 60 day money back guarantee and 10 year warranty.
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, get a Queen Size MyPillow for only $19.98.
Export Selection