All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2023 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
01:00:32
Attorney Tyler Nixon: Is The Appointment of a Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden Case Part of the Cover Up?
| 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.
It's Monday and you are back in the Stone Zone.
On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland named David Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, who had previously brought charges against Hunter Biden as a special counsel.
I saw a Twitter post by lawyer Tyler Nixon, who has represented me as a personal counsel, who's also one of the most knowledgeable And I think most skillful attorneys and political analysts out there who observed in his Twitter post that the appointment of Mr. Weiss is improper and illegal under the Department of Justice's regulations.
There's many other things wrong with this appointment, but now to help break them down for us is a lawyer, Tyler Nixon, joining us now in the Stone Zone.
Roger, good to be with you.
There you are, rocking the seersucker.
It's summertime, might as well take advantage, right?
There's no question.
Seersucker, for those who don't know, comes from an Indian word, which essentially means sugar and cream, describing the stripe in the material.
And it is the perfect weight for this time of year.
It is the coolest of suitings.
For the very torrid and hot summer, and of course was famously worn by Atticus Finch in the very rare, rare three-piece model in To Kill a Mockingbird.
Now that we've dispensed of that, Tyler Nixon is a native of Delaware.
He is a longtime observer and chronicler of the foibles and misdeeds of the Biden family.
He has an encyclopedic knowledge of Joe Biden and his political and personal past based on his own observations.
He has an extraordinary collection of research material, and someday we hope he will write the definitive book.
Which seems to me would be entitled, The Biden Crime Family.
But let us go right, I guess, the best place to begin is on this question of the appointment.
We have a quick video of Merrick Garland.
Let's roll that.
I hope.
One second, one second, it's loading.
We have a technical issue, just stand by here for a moment.
It's been transcoding only like 10 seconds.
10 seconds and we'll be able to show it to you.
Merrick Garland, of course, made this announcement on Friday, received enormous press coverage over the weekend.
Also, a lot of critical analysis.
It really does completely change the government's handling of the Hunter Biden case.
Let me remind you that David Weiss, the U.S.
Attorney from Delaware.
It is a misnomer to say that he was appointed by Donald Trump.
While that is technically correct, he essentially was the only prosecutor the two Democrat Senators from Delaware agreed to give what is called a blue slip to.
In other words, the Senate would confirm his appointment and they would confirm no other individual.
Mr. Weiss served in the same capacity in the administration of Barack Obama.
So he is a holdover.
And this is not a Trump appointee, except for perhaps in the technical sense.
While we're waiting for this video, Tyler, do you want to comment on that?
Yes, I mean, I think it can't be overstated how deceitful, frankly, that media trope is, and the Democrats trope, you know, as though Weiss is somehow loyal to Donald Trump or somehow is going to be in any way affected by the fact that his appointment came at the hands of President Trump, even though, as you mentioned, as though Weiss is somehow loyal to Donald Trump or somehow is going to be in any And And its deference as any, you know, it ignores political reality in addition to propagandizing the issue.
And the fact is that anybody knows that the senators from a state have a very heavy amount of sway over.
I mean, yes, it's going to be generally a Republican, a registered Republican under a Republican president who's going to be appointed U.S.
Attorney.
It has to clear some level of scrutiny.
But for the most part, it's going to be someone that they're happy with.
Otherwise, they would put a hold on it.
So, you know, this is someone who's definitely from within the Delaware Way, as some people would call it.
And his actions demonstrate that.
I mean, it's just laughable to say he's somehow a Trump.
It's basically like saying Robert Mueller is a Republican, right?
I mean, yeah, right.
As far as you can throw him.
Exactly.
We have this clip ready.
Let's roll it.
And he asked to be so appointed.
Upon considering his request, as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint him as special counsel.
This appointment confirms my commitment to provide Mr. Weiss all the resources he requests.
It also reaffirms that Mr. Weiss has the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently, based only on the facts and the law.
Well, there you have it.
By my memory, by the way, Mr. Weiss requested to be appointed a special counsel some time ago, and that request was rejected.
Let's get this out of the way right up front.
Uh, there's a lot of people out there on Twitter and in the blogosphere who are claiming that Hunter Biden's two tax charges, um, were onerous, uh, and oppressive, but that Roger Stone and his wife got some kind of sweetheart deal from the IRS.
Let's be very clear.
Uh, Hunter Biden failed to declare at least $8.9 million worth of income, could be closer to 10 million.
My wife and I failed to report zero.
Hunter Biden had his tax debt paid by a sugar baby, a sugar daddy out of California.
I will have to work for the rest of my life to pay off debts from 2006.
Now, it is true that I technically own the IRS, owe the IRS $2 million, but three quarters of that is interest and penalty.
And had the government not sought to bankrupt me, They would have been receiving more of the eight years of monthly payments I made without fail.
So this idea that I got some kind of a sweetheart deal, it's just apples and oranges.
It's not even, it's not even remotely comparable.
But I had to get that out of the way because leftist trolls will immediately be saying, Oh, Stone got a sweetheart.
No, I got no sweetheart deal.
I got no break.
In fact, normally the IRS in offering compromised negotiations, Would negotiate some reduction in interest and penalties, but in my case, they would give us none.
I have never reported income.
I've never failed to report an asset.
And unfortunately, even though some of these taxes are more than 10 years old, the IRS declines to discharge them and I will end up paying taxes for the rest of my life.
By the way, I'm up to date for every year from 2006 to the current time.
Not without a struggle, but there it is.
Anyway, we got that out of the way.
Roger, I would just interject that notably, your money was made legally.
I mean, all these millions of dollars that Hunter Biden took in are arguably and demonstrably, in some cases, the products of crimes.
So that, I mean, forget, you know, forget they're letting them off of that.
Forget the underlying crimes that are associated with foreign agents being a foreign agent undeclared and worse.
Your money was earned legally.
You make a very good point.
I think that the House Oversight has provided solid evidence of extortion, bribery, money laundering, influence peddling, illegal lobbying, as well as detailing multi-million dollar payments from China, from Ukraine, from Iran, from Russia.
Yet, Andrea Mitchell said the other day on MSNBC that the charges against Hunter Biden We're unfounded.
What planet does she live on?
It's very hard to know.
Oh, my God.
I think you forgot to throw in racketeering, which is, you know, they're running a RICO, practically.
I mean, with this family.
I mean, the way they've structured it, the payments to family members, it's exactly the way a mafia family would be run.
I mean, almost other than just trying to set up legal entities like LLCs or corporations to mask it, like Joe Biden's What is it Capri?
Gosh, Celtic Capri company that he's a corporation in Delaware, which he's the only listed officer and member that was as recently renewed as 2021.
So, you know, what's that all about?
And, you know, we don't even know all the companies yet that he's that they've set up.
And I think that one of the payors overseas, the Ukrainians, said something along the lines of, we've done this in such a complex manner, it'll take them 20 years to unwind it or unpack it.
So, yeah.
I mean, it's just unbelievable.
Before we get to the Merrick Garland stuff, the IRS, you know, Richard Nixon was accused as though he as though he had sicced the IRS on his enemies, quote unquote.
Whereas, I mean, let's face it, the only instances we have in modern and say the modern political history of the IRS being abused against political opponents is all Democrats.
Frankly, Franklin Roosevelt did it.
Kennedy did it.
Obama, obviously.
Brazenly did it in against all the Tea Party patriots on a mass scale.
So, you know, and here we see the flip side of it where they're intervening to give a, you know, clearly criminal, a pattern of criminal conduct, you know, on the order of orders of magnitude relative to most taxpayers who are in any way delinquent on their taxes or whatever.
And they're just actively trying to cover it up, dismiss the charges and whatever, let probably let statutes of limitations, laps, in order to protect the son of the president who's involved in treasonous illegal conduct with the president, in my opinion.
So, you know, it's just – you cannot – you couldn't possibly set up a scenario that would highlight what a – I can't even say it's a double standard.
It's no standard.
It's just tyranny.
So, Tyler, a breakdown for us what the problems are with Mr. Weiss serving as the special counsel.
Yeah, where do I begin?
For those of us who know the Special Counsel Regulation and came to know it and its history, which I did in the context of working with you on your case, Roger, and advising you as to what course to take, one of the particular
I would note this before I get into the regulation, is the fact that there was a challenge posed by allies of yours, and I believe it was from Paul Kaminar, related to Andrew Miller, when Andrew Miller was being at the last minute, the very last, sort of hauled in as a potential witness before the grand jury by Aaron Zelinsky.
And a challenge was posed saying that this, with the help of Colton Boyles actually in his outfit, challenge was posed saying that special counsel appointment itself or the creation of this office was unconstitutional because what it essentially does is create a U.S.
attorney-at-large by say-so or by mere fiat of the Attorney General.
In other words, empowering someone to have those powers that are only invested in these men or women U.S.
attorneys By the United States Senate and by the appointment of the President.
So they sort of circumvented that.
And I believe that, I don't know that the court, as I recall, and maybe you might know this, I don't know if they ruled on the substance of that or the merits of that argument as much as that they ruled on procedural aspects of it, or the fact that maybe it was moot by the time they got to it.
But I know that it wasn't, it was essentially shot down one way or the other as an argument.
I don't know if you recall that.
And so there's questions as to the, go ahead.
I know you're right.
The argument was brought in D.C.
that the specific regulation of the DOJ required that a special counsel be from outside the government.
That means not a U.S.
sitting attorney.
That argument was rejected in the D.C.
Circuit Courts, of course, but that does not mean that Donald Trump's attorneys could not rebring that argument because what happened in Washington, D.C.
is what we non-lawyers refer to as wrongly decided.
And therefore, I expect that that will be brought up again.
But you actually posted the regulation.
I think it is a regulation.
Yes, I just – Just to clarify, Roger, real quick, that was a different issue.
In other words, what it is, is the appointment of any special counsel, whether it's Mueller or whether it's Weiss, in the case of Weiss being doubly violative of the statute, is saying that the special counsel reg itself is unconstitutional.
In the case of Weiss, as you're about to read, there's a very specific provision.
In fact, it's the core of the regulation that has been totally flouted by Garland, but please proceed.
The other problems here, as I see it, other than the legitimacy of the appointment of someone who's a sitting U.S.
attorney, which appears to violate the regulations of DOJ, that would mean, of course, in the long term, if Mr. Weiss were to bring some charge against Hunter Biden and Hunter Biden were to be convicted, he could appeal his conviction and perhaps have his conviction thrown out
On the basis that Mr. Weiss was never properly seated as the special counsel and therefore never properly had the authority to bring the prosecution.
Or perhaps that's the very idea.
Then secondarily, of course, I'm not sure most people notice this, along with the appointment of Mr. Weiss, the Justice Department withdrew the charges currently pending in Delaware
In front of the judge who sniffed out that buried within this sweetheart deal was extremely broad immunity from any future charges on any subject whatsoever, meaning shielding Hunter Biden for future prosecution for under the RICO statutes or for extortion, bribery, money laundering, influence peddling, illegal lobbying, Uh, let's just say it.
Treason.
Uh, he would have been shielded.
Uh, so in other words, and this is very unusual, it appears that the prosecutors worked closely with Hunter Biden's defense lawyers to fashion this, this, uh, sweetheart plea deal.
Uh, and it was only because of a vigilant judge asking tough questions that she recognized that the plea agreement had this poison pill in it.
Now that they have withdrawn this in Delaware, they could choose to refile any such charges, if any are ultimately brought, against Hunter Biden in a far more favorable jurisdiction politically and legally for the Biden family.
So, for example, they could bring their action in the District of Columbia, or they could bring their action in Northern California.
Don't you think that is part of this?
You know, you raise a very interesting, and I pointed out that I felt that the first part of what you said, that the fact of Garland making such a brazen violation of the core of the regulation, it's inexplicable.
Other than, again, as I said, it creates grounds potentially for Hunter Biden down the line to maybe go through a prosecution on, you know, de minimis, even as it is.
And again, have it thrown out because of the basis of the faultiness of this appointment.
But yeah, as far as this is like the opposite of judge shopping, I think.
It's almost like judge refunding or returning, right?
And this is exactly the way they went about it.
And I think you put your finger on something very interesting because it expands.
First, we're led to believe that Merrick Garland in no way was involved in the decision making of Weiss as U.S. attorney in Delaware, right?
And that he had totally free reign.
Of course, this is contradicted by, I believe, the whistleblowers made it clear that Weiss's hands were very much shackled, although it wasn't like he was exactly putting up a big squawk over it.
And on top of that, he couldn't bring actions that were resistant from other U.S. attorneys in other jurisdictions where he might have potentially brought, as you mentioned, D.C., Northern California.
So this would obviously clear the decks for them to just get it out of this judge's hands immediately by dropping the charges.
And like you said, bringing it somewhere else is a total manipulation.
I mean, there's so many, you know, it's like they couldn't, with Mueller, for example, with Mueller's appointment.
Mueller was outside, technically, the department, but I mean, What, who would say that this man was really independent from the Department of Justice?
I mean, his life, his entire life was tied up with, and the people who appointed him, Rosenstein, was his protege, frankly.
And, you know, in other words, there were just such incestuous ties that it makes a mockery of the regulation and the whole purpose of it.
And in this case, it's I mean, even far worse than that, because not only has Weiss made this, and I would note this little bit of more propaganda, is you notice how they said, first of all, first of all, they said that Weiss had requested this, you know, to be requested to be appointed special counsel.
That's unheard of.
When have you ever heard of a U.S.
Attorney or anyone requesting to be appointed special counsel?
I mean, the fact that someone would request that, in my view, should immediately eliminate them as a possibility because of the requirement of independence.
But that being said first he requested it and then they phrase it as you notice he wouldn't be he wanted to be Upgraded to special counsel as though it's just an extension of a US attorney or regular prosecutor position somehow Just a next level of that when it's not it's meant to be a completely Outside the United States government not outside the DOJ as the regulation says outside of the United States government And that's really almost the only
Mandatory provision in there that says shall choose outside the not not may or might or could Shall and so Garland.
I don't know just I don't know the explanation I haven't seen anything other than his little Kurt statement that he made which which is a complete falsehood He says in consistent with the regulations even says that And moreover, which I think is particularly troubling because it creates it It creates an automatic conflict.
I mean, even if Weiss was to resign, I think he would be totally excluded because he's not independent of the DOJ, at least in any...
Uh, way that could pass muster, pass the smell test.
But he's also, he was wrapped up in the entire investigation as it was conducted up to that point for five years.
Um, and I mean, Garland phrases that he will conduct an investigation.
Well, what the hell were they doing for the last, since 2018?
You know, that led to this point of a total denouement, I guess you could say, of the case.
This drama in Delaware Federal District Court with a plea deal that blew up.
So they had to go back to the drawing board and I guess, You know, it's come to the point in Washington and under this criminal regime that they don't care when they come out and brazenly violate law, brazenly violate regulations within the DOJ, and brazenly flout any sorts of conflicts of interest or just the core of the whole reason for this regulation to exist has been totally and brazenly flout any sorts of conflicts of interest or just the core of the whole reason for But as I was saying, moreover, even if he had resigned, it would be.
But he's keeping his position as U.S. attorney.
So it's like not only is he not outside the government, he's still within the DOJ, and it's a mockery of law and justice and this regulation to appoint him as special counsel while he's still U.S. attorney.
attorney.
But I guess they made sure that, you know, this was for, I think this was foisted on him.
This was a scheme concocted by the DOJ's, uh, it might as well be the Hunter Biden defense team in the DOJ because I've never, as you know, the hostility of the prosecutors, Roger, that how unusual and extraordinary it is for these prosecutors to be working closely to fashion this relief with Hunter Biden as though As though their case was creaky or shaky, or they might not want to go to trial on it.
That is nonsense.
You know these federal prosecutors are bullies.
They absolutely will go to any lengths.
Many on your prosecution team committed clear ethical violations, clear breaches of their professional responsibilities.
In prior cases, and as well, I certainly believe in yours.
So, you know, this is just, I mean, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
And I'll let you weigh in here, but I do have one thing that I drew from an interesting document related to the promulgation of this regulation that I think even further shows that this is just a complete, I mean, it literally to me is impeachment grounds for Garland to have done this.
Not just because he did it in such brazen violation of the regulation, Well, the fact that Weiss asked to be appointed.
Clearly, Mr. Weiss can read.
Clearly, Mr. Weiss knows that his appointment would be improper under the regulations.
Plus, we know that he had asked to be upgraded, as they like to put it, to a special counsel some time ago, and that had been previously denied.
We also know that prosecutors in Washington and in California declined to bring Any charges against Hunter Biden in those two jurisdictions.
A greater concern that I have now is that the average special counsel's investigation clocks in at around three years, meaning it took John Durham five long years to determine what we already knew.
There was no Russian collusion.
The judge would not allow us to offer that defense when it came to the alleged hack of the DNC by Russian intelligence.
We were denied the ability to use forensic evidence or expert testimony to disprove the underlying theory in the entire Russian collusion fraud evidence.
And although the Steele dossier was later thoroughly debunked, sadly and strangely, Mr. Durham never even addressed the question of whether or not there was a Russian online hack of the DNC's computer servers.
It was in my trial that the FBI admitted they had never inspected Here's my point.
terminals, and that they relied completely and totally on a report from CrowdStrikes, an outside IT firm.
Yet the head of CrowdStrikes admitted under oath before the House Intelligence Committee that his study and report on the subject contained no proof of an online Russian hack of the DNC.
Here's my point.
I think now you're in a position where, because Mr. Weiss is a special counsel, and because he's withdrawn these charges, the investigation is, quote unquote, ongoing.
going.
This will be used to stymie Congressman James Comer and others in the House who are seeking additional proof beyond that provided by the whistleblowers and that reluctantly provided so far by the government to document the illegal activities of the Biden crime family.
This is all about timing.
And it is conceivable to me that the entire final question and resolution of the issues surrounding Hunter Biden could be timed to take place well after the 2024 election.
Yes, Jeff.
Very excellent, excellent points, Roger.
You're right on point with all these, the nuances of this.
And I would point out also that notably, that just in general, these special counsel investigations, they become essentially rat's nests for partisan attorneys, partisan Democrat attorneys in D.C.
to park themselves and receive.
I mean, everything is paid for.
They get a stipend to get an apartment in Washington.
I mean, this is why it costs just the investigation into the Russian collusion nonsense in your prosecution.
That whole thing was, I mean, what was it, $40 million they burned through?
So that Aaron Zelinsky and these others could be parked in some $3,000 a month flat each, probably in D.C.
or more, and receive, frankly, pretty substantial pay, obviously, to run around and either, in the case of a Mueller operation with Weissman, to essentially persecute innocent because they're associated with Donald Trump, or as we would probably have in the case of Weiss, whatever staff he puts together, to figure out ways to cover up the crimes of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
And that's a real problem.
Another, frankly, just an outflow of the abuse of – I mean, if they thought the special prosecutor law was abused, which is why Congress let it lapse and this was ultimately promulgated within the DOJ for special, quote, counsel – I mean, my lord, it has been, this has just run over the special prosecutor abuses, I think, in terms of just the last couple, you know, few years, Mueller alone, and now we see with Weiss.
And one thing I wanted to point out, which also is, if you remember Dick Thornburg, I think an honest, straightforward guy.
I mean, you were involved in various Pennsylvania politics.
I don't know if you ever knew him personally.
I always thought he was a very straightforward, honest guy, a decent guy.
He was governor of Pennsylvania in the 80s and then became attorney general to George H.W.
Bush.
And he, in 1999, presented with other attorneys the essential – they had drawn up the special counsel regulation or had helped basically draft it and go through and explore all the different aspects of it.
And they testified to Congress on September 15, 1999, presenting this.
And one of the things they said was – and this is – you can find this.
It's actually a Brookings Institution published these initial remarks.
But it says they talked about the sense of urgency and the timing of the appointment of special counsel.
And he said, there are occasions, and this is actually a comment from the federal regulation, when the facts create a conflict so substantial or the exigencies of the situation are such that any initial investigation might taint the subsequent investigation So this is appropriate for the Attorney General to immediately appoint a special counsel.
Now, we know if we're to believe Garland that, you know, and I've never heard Weiss say it himself, it's funny how they all speak for him, but you've never heard the man himself speak.
He supposedly was asking to be appointed special counsel and Garland kept denying it.
Well, I mean, this is the point.
You don't appoint a special counsel after you've completed the investigation and you've basically, in other words, tainted it because it has the marks of the U.S.
attorney.
And the prosecution, the prosecutors and the DOJ all over it.
It's been complete.
I mean, whether it become evidence production or, you know, charges that were decided that they passed or deferred prosecution on, which was clearly the case, many charges probably with Hunter Biden.
I mean, and now what is the special counsel going to reopen that and countermand and say that the DOJ was in fact Corrupt and in passing on this in other words.
This is ridiculous.
This is this is completely again Contrary to the entire spirit of this regulation why the special counsel was created in this case?
You know they botched they've not only not appointed it rapidly, but they've let this investigation quote-unquote if there ever was one be totally Tainted and now it's just a laugh for them to appoint a special counsel.
Who is the person by the way who conducted the investigation?
So, I mean, it's so many wrong in so many ways.
It is so unethical.
Like I said, I really think it would be grounds for impeaching Merrick Garland.
And guess what?
You mentioned the fact that they're using this as an opportunity to, and I don't understand where this comes from, that an ongoing investigation, we can't comment on it.
You can comment on how the, again, how the process by which this was promulgated, and frankly, Weiss ought to be made to ask, don't you, didn't you read the regulation?
Why would you accept an appointment that you know is in direct violation of the statute, of the regulation in this case?
Not only that, but you continue to hold a position that makes it an ongoing violation, meaning you could say he's outside the government if he resigned, I guess, from the U.S.
Attorney, but he's staying as U.S.
Attorney, so it makes it a constant violation, an ongoing violation.
He could be asked that question without having to get into any of the Uh, aspects of the prior investigation involving Hunter Biden.
Of course, you know, this, this doesn't matter to these people when they stonewall, but I would point out that in this, um, in these remarks or in these notes, uh, whatever have you, these, this report that was a incident to the creation of it, I believe that there was, uh, they, they said something about exempting this, uh, ability to sort of stonewall oversight from Congress that normally would apply to the DOJ.
In the cases of impeachment, meaning they cannot say, well, we, you know, this is an ongoing investigation if it's an impeachment.
So maybe if they impeach Garland, this will, you know, Weiss will be a relevant witness to uncover all this and all the aspects of the Biden investigation and what's been done with it or not been done with it.
Because that's really where the rubber meets the road.
We already know, they've established in the Oversight Committee, all of the crimes and the criminality.
They have the receipts as the phrase goes.
It's really just a matter of, frankly, uncovering all the corruption.
Folks, if you are just tuning in, we're here with Tyler Nixon, attorney, native of Delaware, longtime observer of the Biden family and their piccadillos and political maneuvers, as well as their epic crimes.
We're going to ask Tyler to stick with us here for a moment while we go to a quick commercial appeal.
Folks, what we do here at the Stone Zone is sponsored by the great people at MyPillow.com.
That's right, Mike Lindell, the number one advocate for free speech and for election integrity in the United States.
He has an upcoming conference, which I unfortunately will be unable to attend, in Springfield, Missouri.
I think that is the 17th through the 19th, I believe.
It's going to be groundbreaking.
But Mike Lindell is in his own fight.
He's being sued by one of the major voting machine manufacturers.
But he is a fighter who has no intention whatsoever of settling.
And therefore, when you go to MyPillow.com and you use promo code STONE, there it is, promo code STONE, it really is a threefer.
Number one, you're helping Mike Lindell, the number one entrepreneur, capitalist, and businessman in the United States.
You are helping this program, The Stone Zone, to help pay for our video editing and our guest booking and our production.
You're also helping frankspeech.com and Lindell 1 and 2, Lindell TV, pardon me, 1 and 2.
So let's talk about some quick products here.
My Kitchen Towels are a new product that is offered at MyPillow.com.
There you get a 25% off these extremely durable kitchen towels.
Who doesn't need a good kitchen towel?
Check those out on the MyPillow site.
There is the legendary MyPillow 2.0.
Now if you're one of those people who says, look I have all the MyPillow pillows I could possibly ever use, I'm telling you that when you try this revolutionary new pillow you will give your other pillows away.
That's because the new MyPillow 2.0 employs a patented cooling technology that is woven into the pillow so that the pillow itself is always slightly cool to the touch.
As Mike Lindell himself likes to say, the key to a perfect night's sleep is height and temperature.
And when you use the MyPillow 2.0, you don't have to keep flipping your pillow over through the night to get the cool side.
Right now, when you order your very own MyPillow 2.0 at a cost of $89.98, Mike Lindell throws in a second MyPillow 2.0 absolutely free.
So this is a buy one get one value that won't be around very much longer.
Whether it is the dog beds, the pet blankets, the all-season slippers, the MyPillow sandals, Waffle blankets, the throw blankets, the bathrobes, the MyPillow mattresses, and the MyPillow mattress toppers.
Mike Lindell stands behind the quality, the first-rate quality of everything he sells.
The man is one of the most decent Christian gentlemen you'll ever meet, but when it comes to business, he's a tyrant when it comes to quality.
So there's nothing sold on the MyPillow site that Michael Lindell has not personally performed a due diligence on, tried himself, tested, and found worthy to be listed among the great products at MyPillow.com.
We're going to put that promo code up for you one more time.
MyPillow, there it is.
The promo code is STONE.
I also want to tell you now that we have recently completely revamped StoneZone.com.
StoneZone.com.
So let me urge you to go there.
You can subscribe for absolutely free.
It is yet another place beyond our Rumble channel where you can see every one of our previous shows and see some of the latest interviews I have given or stories that I have written, pieces I've written, or other important pieces of news That I just think the mainstream media is ignoring.
So please, if you're within the sound of my voice, go to StoneZone.com.
While you're there, you can visit the store.
You might want to get your very own Roger Stone paperweight or any one of my books, including, let's see what we have here, The Myth of Russian Collusion, The Clintons War on Women, The Bush Crime Family, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ, and other classics.
Now at StoneZone.com.
I'll give you a chance to write it down.
StoneZone.com.
Please subscribe for absolutely free today.
God bless you.
All right, we're going back to Tyler Nixon.
We're going to shift gears here a little bit, Tyler.
The president, as you know, has been charged in the District of Columbia.
To me, this shows a lack of confidence by federal prosecutors who are politically motivated that the case currently filed against him in South Florida is a winner for them.
I have read the 1977 Presidential Records Act.
I've also read the decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who essentially upholds that law and says that a president can really do anything he wants with his documents, including deciding which documents are personal and which documents must be returned to the National Archives.
Therefore, I really think the investigation of Donald Trump over alleged mishandling of documents is a MacGuffin.
It's a fraud.
We've yet to hear from the special counsel who is investigating the much, much larger number of documents that were held improperly by Senator, Vice President and later President Joe Biden, who shipped a number of these sensitive documents to the University of Pennsylvania, who shipped a number of these sensitive documents to the University of Pennsylvania, where I think it was a 50 million dollar contribution from anonymous Chinese donors.
We assume those documents were integrated into the computer system there, yet that special counsel doesn't seem to leak.
And we know from recent budget figures that that special counsel spent almost nothing investigating Joe Biden, who had a thousand plus boxes of documents.
So what is your reaction to the charges that have been filed thus far against the president in the District of Columbia?
Well, it's funny you mentioned this special counsel appointed in the case of the Biden, you know, having documents all over the place, I mean everywhere, and associated with institutions that are, again, taking incident to his involvement, money from the Communist Chinese to the tunes of tens of millions, which is illegal to not be reported.
And as I understand it, they have not reported that formally.
I mean, what I'd look for is maybe, can we have proof of life of this special counsel somewhere?
I mean, the guy just disappeared off into oblivion, like a day after he was appointed, in favor of this Jack Smith, who, and I would point out also, at what point, I'm sorry, did, you know, I guess it belies the fact, the lie of their, The fact that Jack Smith was appointed over this documents case, he was appointed to bring the very case we're talking about in DC, frankly.
Because, I mean, I'm sorry, how did this become his purview?
I mean, he wasn't appointed for that purpose.
Did they expand his jurisdiction?
I'm sorry, it's like it just started happening.
No one has substantiated the reason for it.
I mean, that he was somehow directed in this direction, that he was tasked with this, or he just discovered it in the process of what, the phony classified documents case, or whatever, defense documents case.
I'm unclear as to how How this guy got suddenly, you know, suddenly turned into the Donald Trump election challenge prosecution squad in D.C.
And I think ultimately that was their objective, is to bring these charges.
And they're a complete, I mean, there's farcical and laughable and yet disturbing as the way they conducted the raid on Mar-a-Lago and brought the documents charges against Donald Trump.
While again, you know, Joe Biden has had, I mean, and another aspect, Roger, I'd point out the Joe Biden side of it.
He has his Senate documents continuously locked away by the University of Delaware taxpayer expense and the Supreme Court of Delaware has been dragging its feet in terms of which Judicial Watch and others have brought suit to try to disgorge those.
I remember you remember the young Intern that worked with your defense team, Adam Beal, before he even worked with the team, I asked him, sent him to, because I didn't want me to be the person doing it because they might draw conclusions if they knew me in Delaware, but to just simply ask in 2019, what's the access to these documents?
And he was, of course, completely stonewalled.
And that's at the point at which we discovered this deal where these are all locked away until Joe Biden's years after he leaves public life.
Not just office, but public life altogether.
That these tens of thousands of documents, hundreds of thousands, going back this entire Senate career, will ever see the light of day of scrutiny.
Other than, of course, Biden apparatchiks checking in and out of there, probably sanitizing it as necessary over the course of the last several years.
And Tara Reid, of course, is someone denied justice by this corrupt deal, in my opinion, where the taxpayers of Delaware get to You know, shoulder the burden of housing all of Joe Biden's Senate records while there's no public access to it or any access to it other than whoever's approved by Biden himself.
You know, that's just another really unfortunate.
But anyway, back to the Trump case in D.C.
I can't imagine how they could possibly prove this.
And I guess it comes down to the judge.
Let's face it.
It was like Amy Berman Jackson was shopped into your case because they knew she'd be hostile.
They knew she'd be the fifth prosecutor in the case, they knew she'd play ball, and she would be absolutely, uh, wouldn't care about your constitutional rights, your essential civil rights and human rights, really, such as the right to speak, um, and the disgusting gag order that was imposed on you that was so broad and so, uh, beyond anything that's, uh, that could be justified under law or justice that it extended beyond even when the jury made the decision in your case.
I mean, I cannot...
I can't emphasize this enough.
The whole point, supposedly, is to protect a juror's rights, excuse me, the defendant's rights with a jury.
And in your case, they basically just flouted it and completely gagged you and kept it going well past that.
So I find that just extraordinary beyond belief.
And what we have is another situation with the same judge, and you see the same flouting of the Constitution.
With Jack Smith making statements such as the public's general interest or, you know, in a speedy trial.
That is not, I mean, that is just an absolute affront to any interpretation of that provision of the Constitution and what it exists for, the right to a speedy trial.
It resides in the defendant.
And it's a protection against government overreach and government abuse.
It's not there so the government can hurry through a case.
Donald Trump should have the right to present mountains of evidence for days and weeks on end, showing that he had every reason, every valid reason to believe.
And in fact, everyone else should have now reason to believe that there was absolutely systematic corruption and election fraud that went on in 2020.
That denied him the presidency, that stole it for this feeble, basement-dwelling, senile, demented demagogue from Delaware, unfortunately.
And he should be able to present that as every reason to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had every reason, again, to believe, and was not lying, as they claim, as though they could possibly prove this, prove a lie, in the sense that it could get inside his head.
Well, he knew it was false.
This is the language and the type of sort of case framing that occurs in totalitarian states and in banana republics, frankly, under like a Roland Freisler, Hitler shouting judge, where, you know, it was like, you know, it's thought crimes, essentially, you know, Donald Trump was lying and we know it and, you know, he therefore was defrauding the country and it is complete garbage.
Any jurist would probably throw it out summarily.
Before it even gets to the initial stages, if they had an ounce of integrity in them.
But I think we're dealing with, clearly, a hostile, Obama-appointed, black woman judge in D.C.
in federal district court.
And she's, you know, going to be, as Amy Berman Jackson was in your case, a law unto herself, you know, her bad self.
And she's going to basically rule against Donald Trump.
And she may have initially, they felt, in the gag order ruling, the protective order ruling, I heard some people say, well, it's not as bad as I thought.
Yeah, of course, she'll try to appear mild-mannered up front until Donald Trump says something that the DOJ and Jack Smith runs to her with, just as in your case, and clamp down further and further on his right to speak.
I mean, you're almost in a constitutional crisis aspect because you have, as the presidential nominee, potentially the Republican Party, the chief opponent of the sitting president, and they're going to try to literally clamp down him on his speech and his ability to discuss this case at risk of Presumably, you know, being jailed for contempt by this judge.
The fact, again, that we're even discussing a protective order and this judge has not recused herself for her clear conflicts of interest in being in a former, I guess we could say partner sense or not a partner, but an associate, a law associate of Hunter Biden at her former law firm.
And of course, her comments that she had made, I believe she had sentenced defendants, it's come out now, saying that their loyalty was unwavering to this man who still walks free, referring to Donald Trump, this one man who still walks free, implying his criminality is somehow a conclusion that we all have to draw automatically, as she just did in sentencing them.
So, you know, this, and then again, I think,
Another counsel on the show pointed out the fact that it's notable that the judges who should recuse themselves are the ones who always deny a Motion to have them removed from the case and the ones who are the most ethical will automatically remove themselves So you don't even have to request it this judge is making the she is exhibit a for the Congress to finally finally stop nibbling around the edges and Eliminate the federal district court in the Washington DC and frankly in other courts in that in that district
Um, it has become a complete star chamber for the persecution of Republicans.
It does not need to exist.
And all it is is a haven for the Amy Berman Jacksons and the whatever this judge's name is of the world to essentially preside over rigged prosecutions being brought by the likes of Jack Smith, Robert Mueller and others that inevitably and irrevocably and always Are against Republicans by massive margin.
If you're a Democrat, you will never not be exonerated in D.C.
If you're a Republican, you will never be.
Well, you'll never be exonerated, period.
You'll always be convicted.
And that's just been the case in any parallel cases.
And as you know, as someone who the jury process, 95 percent Biden voters, these people, NPR listeners, MSNBC listeners, we couldn't find one Catholic, couldn't find one veteran.
We couldn't find one black man.
Anybody who might be potentially sympathetic, much less some sort of crypto-partisan, self-deluding, wannabe hit person on a jury that will get stoned or will get trumped, regardless of what deceit and nonsense it takes with their phony protestations of integrity.
Amy Berman Jackson, you remember, she just glossed over every conflict of interest.
Including up to the jury foreman herself, forewoman herself, who is a Democrat congressional candidate.
I wouldn't expect anything different from this judge and they know it.
And Jack Smith's sophistry and abuses of power will go unchecked by her.
For me, it is kind of deja vu all over again.
Judge Chuckton threatens to gag Donald Trump because his public comments might taint the jury pool.
They said in my case, yet long after I was convicted and awaiting sentencing, right up until the time that I was to be carted off to prison, the gag order was kept in place.
For what purpose?
Then additionally, is very clear that the judge will reject any argument that this is a selective prosecution or that this is a politically motivated prosecution or whether or not the prosecution of Trump interferes in his presidential campaign.
The judge has reportedly rolled her eyes at that argument by Trump's lawyers on Friday and It's very clear that she is not going to
Entertain that whatsoever she is just to be absolutely clear based on the record She and her husband both appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama major donors to Barack Obama as was her mother-in-law and Previously she made a decision to seal the fusion GPS records that would have shown us who paid for the phony steel dossier and So, I think the grounds have existed for her recusal.
I don't expect her to agree to recuse herself, nor do I expect her to agree to a change of venue.
D.C.
is a killing field when it comes to Donald Trump.
I don't understand how he could possibly get a fair trial in this venue.
I'm a little disappointed that his lawyers have not already moved to recuse, but perhaps they have that in the works.
Also today, the judge in New York denied a motion by Trump's defense there to remove the New York business records case, which should be a civil case, but has for some reason been upgraded to a criminal case.
The The judge there denied a motion to remove that to federal court.
Another setback for President Trump and his legal team.
Timing here seems to me to be a crucial question, Tyler.
It took John Durham five years to determine that there was no Russian collusion, five long years to determine something that most of us already knew, but just long enough for the statute of limitations to run out so that neither Hillary nor Barack Obama nor but just long enough for the statute of limitations to run out so that neither Hillary nor Barack Obama nor Joe Biden nor FBI Director James Comey or CIA Director John Brennan or Attorney General Loretta Lynch or Acting
The fact that there was no probable cause, no evidence whatsoever of Russian collusion to rationalize or legally serve as a probable cause for the appointment of Robert Mueller, for the approval of FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his campaign, or for the approval of FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his campaign, or for the Crossfire Hurricane Counter-Investigation.
Five years it took him, yet Mr. Smith has concluded his investigation in both Florida and in Washington, D.C.
Although in Florida, I don't know, Tyler, you're a member of the bar, you might find this somewhat unusual, he took testimony, he took transcripts of testimony given to a D.C.
grand jury and read them to a grand jury in Florida in order to secure Yes, and I mean, just this is yet another abuse or a violation of the law, essentially.
I mean, the way we conduct and jurisdictional issues as well.
I mean, a grand jury sitting in D.C.
And I mean just – this is yet another abuse or a violation of the law essentially.
I mean the way we conduct and jurisdictional issues as well.
I mean a grand jury sitting in D.C. has no impact or effect or any sort of – what's the word?
I guess not jurisdiction but consequence or authority over anything that goes – I mean, I would hope this judge in Florida would step up and be like, we're rejecting that anything that's come out of a D.C., a foreign, so to speak, but a non, you know, not a jurisdiction other than this one and a grand jury made up of the people of this district.
I mean, you know, it's an aspect of federalism.
But, you know, it reflects the larger, I mean, this all reflects the larger corrosion of our justice system generally, and how these people in their mania to weaponize it, to appoint their apparatchiks posing as either judges or prosecutors, And we're all supposed to believe that they're just, they're so high and holy and pure that whatever they come out with, no matter how ridiculously subversive of law and justice, is the right result because they're the right people.
I mean, it's this total megalomaniacal viewpoint that they have that emanates from the ultimate malignant narcissist of all.
And, you know, we know, I mean, people have said to accuse Trump of this, but it's Barack Obama.
I mean, he is just, I mean, his laughable claim that he was an attorney and he was, it's like Joe Biden claiming he's a constitutional law professor.
God help us in the Constitution if that man was ever at any sort of sway in constitutional law.
We do know, however, that his son, Beau, was killed in Afghanistan and that his flag-dropped, draped coffin was shipped back to the United States.
It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic and deplorable.
It's unbelievable.
It's like Joe Biden's wife was killed by a drunk driver who drank his lunch.
The man was stone sober and it practically ruined his life with this piece of Filth Biden, this demagogue, went around and perpetuated this lie and never retracted it, by the way.
They told him to finally stop saying it.
You're, you know, you're destroying this man and his family by claiming the driver drank his lunch when he killed his, killed Neilia Biden.
She pulled out in front of him.
She wasn't paying attention.
She was distracted.
And, you know, that's that.
And Biden's just, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that he and Obama have, I mean, they make, they're really giving a run, the Clintons a run for their money in terms of the subversion of the essential elements and systems of justice in this country.
And it's got to stop.
It's got to end.
And the House needs to, I don't know if they're waiting to time it according to the election schedule, but there need be impeachments rolling out now.
Mayorkas, Garland, frankly, I guess you could Harris, but definitely Biden, clearly.
And Jack Harris needs to be defunded.
He needs to be, frankly, impeached and removed from that position as well for his abuses.
You know, just another partisan hitman with a spotty record and a record of abuse of power that's been affirmed by the Supreme Court in numerous cases.
Yeah, it's got to end, and we need to step up now because we can't just – I mean these Republicans, these rhinos, they're really – they're going to be the death of this republic because we expect this from the Democrats but not to be undermined by our own people.
Better a snake in the grass than an asp in the bosom.
So I was very – final point here – I was very interested to see Tim Stanley with the UK Telegraph pen a very eloquent piece on how it is probable that Joe Biden will be pushed aside and that Michelle Obama would be the Democratic nominee for 2024.
What an extraordinarily original thought.
I'm sure you got attribution, right?
That seemed to be missing, but I don't really care.
The point, I guess my final question, in the two minutes we have left, taking off your legal hat, putting on your hat as a political analyst, can Joe Biden possibly stand for re-election?
I don't think that's the relevant question.
I think the question is, can they possibly have anything they can do to push him out of that position?
I don't think so.
I think Joe Biden, they're underestimating the stubbornness and narcissism and megalomania of this man, and frankly, his family's interests.
Jill's got to be convinced that she should give up all the trappings of power and all that comes with it, and all the ability for them to avoid what they're avoiding now, which is the bar of justice.
And I don't think it's going to be so easy.
I think they don't realize who they're dealing with.
Even his dementia, he's going to cling to power to the bitter end.
I now agree with that analysis.
I'll tell you, the drop dead date really is the end of November.
In December, you have filing deadlines for a number of the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
And at that juncture, he will either stand as a candidate for re-election.
He clearly understands that as soon as he is a lame duck, in the instant he is no longer president, he loses the ability to pardon his son Hunter Pardon his brother Jim, pardon other members of the Biden crime family, as well as pardon himself.
I think it's interesting when it was speculated that President Trump, perhaps seeing this lawfare against himself and members of his family, might pardon himself at the end of his term, something he did not do.
Law professors like Lawrence Tribe said it wasn't at all clear that the president had this power, had this authority, but when Joe Biden pardons Hunter, Which if he remains as president, I predict he will do, they will all argue that it's perfectly alright, that it's not even controversial.
All right, we have to leave it there.
I want to thank my guest today, Tyler Nixon, for joining us in the Stone Zone.
Folks, if you haven't subscribed to the Stone Zone at Rumble, we ask you to do that.
You can watch us every day at Rumble.com slash Roger Stone.
Please go there now and subscribe to our Rumble channel.
Until tomorrow, God bless you and Godspeed.
And thanks to our guest, Tyler Nixon.
Thank you, Roger.
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 MyPillow is made with my patented adjustable fill, the most amazing cotton, and a 2-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-sized MyPillow for only $19.98!
▲
Export Selection