All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2023 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
55:56
Is Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Even Legal? Attorney Paul Kamenar & Roger Stone Discuss
| 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!
Welcome, I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are back in the Stone Zone.
I want to thank so many of you who have gone to Rumble.com slash Roger Stone to subscribe to what we do here five days a week at 5 p.m.
Eastern Time every single day on the Stone Zone.
Please go to Rumble.com slash Roger Stone and subscribe now so you don't miss any of our great programming.
Now you can also watch us on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Telegram, on Cozy.tv, on numerous other platforms, not to mention, of course, FrankSpeech.com, where we appear under LyndellTV1.
Our viewership is growing exponentially.
I want to express my thanks to many of you who are just now entering the Stone Zone.
Well, in the last week, there have been some momentous legal developments.
President Donald Trump argued in front of Federal Judge Chutkan that his status as President of the United States afforded him immunity from prosecution of anything that happened on January 6th.
She rejected that argument.
He then sought an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeal, but then Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide the issue prior to the Appeals Court making a decision.
This is extraordinarily out of the ordinary.
What's interesting, of course, is that the lower court rejected Trump's immunity claim based on the wrongly decided Richard Nixon versus United States case in which over 100 years of the Supreme Court recognizing the principle of executive privilege ignored all previous law because of the national hatred for Richard Nixon.
So much for the Supreme Court being infallible.
At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a January 6th related case challenging the law under which a number of January 6th defendants have been charged and convicted.
We're going to have a guest now to help us break all of that down.
Paul Kamenar is the counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center.
Full disclosure, he's also very ably represented me as an attorney in the past, and Paul Kamenar, Esquire, joins us now.
Hi, Roger.
Thank you for having me.
Paul, you are among the attorneys in the country for whom I have the greatest respect.
You're also a Hungarian-American, which puts you in a very special category with myself and my own ancestors.
But let's kind of start this at the beginning.
You wrote a very, very interesting and provocative piece some time ago for Town Hall.
I went back and re-read it.
Essentially, you argue that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel is illegal in itself.
Now, I recall this argument being used unsuccessfully to challenge the status of Robert Mueller.
As a special counsel in DC, but walk us through not only your legal theory, but why you think it is applicable today.
Sure.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Well, as you know, Roger, I represented one of your aides, Andrew Miller, when he was subpoenaed by Robert Mueller to go before the grand jury.
And I moved to have that subpoena quashed on the grounds that Robert Mueller was not properly appointed as a special counsel.
What we argued was basically two things.
One, there is no statute creating the Office of Special Counsel.
And two, under Article 2 of the Appointment Powers, he has to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
And here are the theories involved.
Um, that article says that all officers of the United States have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
But then it says, but inferior officers.
They could be appointed by just the president or an executive head of an executive agency if that office is, quote, established by law.
So what we first argued was that Mueller was a superior principal officer that should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, just like all U.S.
attorneys are in this country.
And what we argue was that Robert Mueller is a super U.S.
attorney because, unlike a normal U.S.
attorney, he can file his charges in D.C., in Virginia, in New York, etc.
So we argue that he wasn't properly appointed as a superior Officer.
And the government said, nice try, but Robert Mueller is just an inferior officer.
So he could be appointed by the head of the agency.
And the head of the agency, of course, was the attorney general.
But then I came back and said, well, wait a minute.
That office has to be, quote, established by law.
And it wasn't established by law.
What happened is, we all recall, was that Ken Starr was the Independent prosecutor that went after Bill Clinton.
And that law was expired back in 1997 because both the Republicans and the Democrats said, look, we don't like to have this kind of an independent counsel roving around and going willy-nilly to anybody.
So we'll just let that law expire.
And it did.
But Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general the very next day said, well, here's the regulation I just wrote.
Actually, it was Neil Katyal, who was then an assistant solicitor general, actually drafted the regulation and said, and that regulation says, we hereby establish the Office of Special Counsel and we can appoint anybody that we want.
And so Robert Mueller was not even Uh, in the government at the time, he was then a private citizen.
So we argued both arguments that, number one, he should have been appointed by the president.
He wasn't.
Number two, even if he is an inferior officer, his office wasn't established by law.
And then we make kind of a third argument that he had to be appointed by the head of the department, which then was the attorney general.
But that Attorney General then, Jeff Sessions, recused himself.
And you had Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, appoint him.
And I said, well, you're not the head of the agency.
And they said, well, Jeff Sessions, you know, basically recused himself.
I said, well, he can recuse himself from the investigation, but he can't recuse himself from appointing the special counsel, because that's required by the Constitution.
Long story short, The Court of Appeals rejected my argument after, you know, ruminating over it for like four months.
Everybody thought that maybe I might win the case.
And they came out with their opinion and said, no, you know, the Attorney General can do this.
It was a really slippy, sloppy opinion.
It was like about 10 pages.
And quite frankly, I could have written a better opinion against me than they wrote.
And we couldn't go to the Supreme Court because Andrew Miller, our client, would have to stay in So, here we are with Jack Smith.
He, like Mueller, was plucked out of thin air and said, I hereby dub you as Special Counsel.
Missouri.
And so we were not able to go up to the Supreme Court.
So the Supreme Court has not heard this argument.
So here we are with Jack Smith.
He, like Mueller, was plucked out of thin air and said, I hereby dub you as special counsel.
So we're hoping that the argument would be made again that Jack Smith is unconstitutional.
Now, as we know, Donald Trump has two criminal cases going in the federal system, one here in D.C.
and the other one in Florida with the Mar-a-Lago.
Now, that argument, if we made here in D.C., would surely lose because the courts would say, well, we're bound by the D.C.
Circuit decision.
But this argument can be made in Florida and the 11th Circuit because they are not bound.
By the D.C.
Circuit.
So we're in the process of contacting the attorneys in that case and see if that argument can be made.
So stay tuned.
And that way, if the court rules that Mueller or Jack Smith is unconstitutional, then all his indictments and subpoenas can be torn up.
They'd have to go back and do it the right way.
Very, very powerful argument coming from a non-lawyer.
You are the one who brought my attention to this.
We're going to show a video here in a second.
Yesterday, I became aware of the fact that Ari Melber, who's a very deeply mentally disturbed individual who seems to have some bizarre obsession with me, but who has defamed me repeatedly on MSNBC, All seven people are watching every day, I'm sure, defame me yet again.
Let's roll this.
Our top story, Special Counsel Jack Smith's breakthrough as he tries to take a fairly assertive and proactive approach to prosecuting Trump for the coup.
And this concerns a mystery surrounding Trump's actions during the January 6th plotting, The speech, the insurrection, and those long, tense hours when Trump stood by while his fans committed what is now a convicted sedition.
Some of that is, of course, so well known that people look up and say, what are we still debating in court?
I've told you before, the process takes time.
But part of the process is getting more evidence and a better view of how this all went down, including potentially who Trump was talking to or messaging with, who he was communicating with as the sedition unfolded.
We know Trump spent part of the time in his private White House dining room.
We know that he watched the violence unfold on television.
We know that during the period of that tense time, and you really have to bring yourself back to how it felt, No one knew how many people might die, or who would be killed, or how long it would take to get order again.
But during that very period, he posted online, on what was then called Twitter, about condemning Mike Pence as his fans hunted Pence down.
That's a lot of what's known.
There's other things, though, we don't fully know.
And that's because there is a seven hour gap in what are normally meticulous White House call logs.
Not on just any day, but on the obviously quite suspicious and now criminally investigated day of January 6th from, as you see here in this post report, around the 11 a.m.
hour all the way up to about 7 p.m.
Now that has been something that many people have wanted answers to.
Journalists research that kind of thing.
People call each other.
People ask questions.
Sometimes you find a hint or a clue or a leak from people inside the White House.
Why did the logs go missing?
You may recall missing material was a big part of what ultimately undid the Nixon presidency in Watergate.
Well now there are clues.
According to Jack Smith's new court filing, he has obtained what one investigator in this area has called the holy grail of the evidence against Trump, his own cell phone data.
Let me repeat that, a lot flying around.
This is the cell phone data of Donald Trump that may have clues about what he did do or didn't do or what he lied about on January 6th.
This filing indicating they've extracted and processed data from the White House cell phones used by the defendant, that is, Defendant Trump.
And the team reviewed and analyzed data on the defendant's phone and determined the usage of these phones through the post-election period, including on and around.
And that's standard legal language.
Basically, they got him.
They got the evidence for Jan 6, 2021.
They've specifically identified, they write, periods of time during which the defendant's phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on January 6th.
That's important because you can imagine a defense where someone says politicians like the President have many people potentially tweeting or writing online for their behalf.
Smith also states they have the phone data of an individual one.
That's an anonymous individual.
So experts say this is the kind of thing that can add to the evidence of what Trump did or didn't do, which can box him in.
That goes to his public conduct, that he really did send out this or that message or tweet, and to his secret conduct of who he called and how long they spoke and who texted him and what he replied and what that says about the larger defense that he will try to make.
Because if part of that defense is, hey, a lot was going on, or I didn't know this, or as soon as I heard there was violence, I did tell them to be peaceful, well, the evidence may say something different about those kind of claims.
This could also show whether, quote, Trump personally approved or sent, as I mentioned, that very fateful tweet attacking Pence.
That's how Politico puts it.
The January 6th committee did not get this far.
Indeed, in that final report, which we've discussed here and recently discussed with their Vice Chair Cheney, the committee was clear that it was, quote, unable to locate official records of Trump's telephone calls that afternoon.
So, are you aware of any phone call by the President of the United States to the Secretary of Defense that day?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Are you aware of any phone call by the President of the United States to the Attorney General of the United States that day?
had no idea.
So are you aware of any phone call by the president of the United States to the secretary of defense that day?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Are you aware of any phone call by the president of the United States to the attorney general of the United States that day?
No.
Are you aware of any phone call by the president of the United States to the secretary of homeland I'm not aware of that, no.
Did you speak to President Trump on his private cell phone on either January 5th or January 6th?
Once again, I advise the Council I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question.
Let's walk through in plain English what we just saw there.
The second clip is of a defendant, Roger Stone, who we've heard so much about, basically saying that to truthfully answer whether they spoke that day, him and the then-loser of the 2020 election, outgoing President Trump, if he admitted or spoke about whether they had that contact, that could implicate him in a crime.
That's not good, but as we've said, it's also his right, in that kind of proceeding, to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
But that would go to him not wanting to say it.
If there is enough phone data swirling around that Jack Smith has of the President's phone, the phones the President's used, or Roger Stone and others, they may be able to prove up that question in court without Stone's testimony.
On the other side, we heard Liz Cheney's disembodied voice, the nature of the way they shot the deposition, asking the basic questions that you'd ask any commander-in-chief.
Again, if the Capitol is attacked as a national security event, it is now, of course, as I mentioned, a convicted sedition.
It doesn't matter who's doing the sedition.
It's not supposed to, right?
Could be a foreign terrorist group.
Could be domestic terrorists.
Could be people who claim that they support this or that politician or the sitting president.
But it is a baseline obligation of the Commander-in-Chief to defend the country.
Everybody knows that.
And so what Cheney was illustrating there was the lack of awareness, and thus the possibility that it didn't happen, that Trump ever lifted a finger to anyone, from the military to the Attorney General, to anyone, to try to defend the United States.
Why?
Because you don't defend, allegedly, against the sedition, insurrection, and attack that you yourself planned, started, and wanted.
I say allegedly because, again, this is all going to be litigated by Jack Smith in the coup trial.
Trump's lawyers say that he is innocent, he is legally presumed innocent, and they argue that calls or missing calls are not enough to prove the coup.
So let's walk through in plain English, if I may use Ari's teleprompter technique, why this is complete bullshit.
First of all, I categorically deny that I had any phone conversation with either President Trump or any member of his staff on either January 5th or January 6th.
And the assertion of my Fifth Amendment right does not disprove that in any way.
Counselor, does pleading the Fifth mean that your answer is necessarily incriminating?
Absolutely not, but I couldn't believe that Ari Malberg said that you were a defendant.
No, that's fine.
It's the same Ari Melber who claimed that I should have been charged with others in Georgia even though I had no involvement in Georgia and I don't know, other than Rudy Giuliani and the President, I don't know any of those involved in Georgia.
Had nothing to do with Georgia.
Didn't visit Georgia.
Wasn't in touch with anybody involved in Georgia.
Ari Melber is a defamer and he's walking on the edge.
Now, I am a public figure, but this is not the first time that he has defamed me.
We're going to go to a quick commercial break here.
We're with Paul Kaminar, who is counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, one of the foremost conservative attorneys and thinkers in the country.
And we'll be right back after this commercial message.
Hello, I'm Mike I'm Mike Lindell, and I'm excited to announce my new project.
my coffee.
I get products all the time from entrepreneurs, from my new platform, mystore.com.
And when I tried my coffee for the first time, I was blown away.
It is the best coffee I've ever had in my life.
I spent the last four months doing my due diligence, and this family-owned business micromanages every step from the fields to the cup to ensure the best quality coffee you're ever going to have.
It starts with the beans that are grown in Honduras.
Honduras' volcanic soil and humid climate make the perfect growing conditions for coffee plants.
Which produced the best beans ever!
Then each batch is tested for its aroma, taste and other aspects to meet the highest standards in the coffee industry.
And after that it goes into production which is all done right here in the USA!
It's like you're getting that small batch specialty coffee but delivered right to your front door.
So go to mystore.com or call the number on your screen.
Use the promo code and you'll get your very own My Coffee for 25% off.
You guys all know that I've traveled the country for the past year and a half.
I've stayed in hundreds of hotels.
I've tried every coffee out there.
Well, some of the coffees have that terrible aftertaste, some that leave me jittery or I get an upset stomach.
Well, my coffee is different.
It's the richest, smoothest, best coffee I've ever had.
My coffee comes in a variety of flavors.
You get them ground or whole bean, plus it's certified organic and non-GMO.
I guarantee it'll be the best coffee you've ever had.
So go to mystore.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code and you'll get my coffee for 25% off.
And I'm going to give you deep discounts on all my store products.
That's mystore.com.
It's my new platform for USA entrepreneurs.
Please order now.
This is Roger Stone.
You know, Winston Churchill loved a good cigar.
So did Jack Kennedy, Mark Twain, and other notables.
Whether you're an occasional cigar smoker or a regular cigar smoker, you need to know about My Patriot Cigars.
These are premium, handmade cigars out of Nicaragua, made with 100% long filler tobacco, aged at least 3 years, to give you the best possible smoke.
Go to MyPatriotCigars.com and use promo code STONE and you get 15% off.
There's also free shipping for orders over $100.
Every box of cigars comes with a $10 e-gift card for your next purchase.
Yes, it's a premium smoke for freedom-loving patriots.
Go to MyPatriotsCigars.com and don't forget to use the promo code STONE.
There you have it, folks, MyPatriotsCigars.com.
This is premium, long-leaf Nicaraguan tobacco.
These cigars are rolled on the thighs of Nicaraguan virgins.
In all seriousness, there are four different complexities, one for every palate.
They come in various ring sizes and shapes.
There is one for everybody, and believe me, The price is right.
So go to MyPatriotsCigars.com and use promo code STONE.
When you do, for the special holiday season, you actually get 25% off your order.
That's right, 25% off.
So please go to MyPatriotsCigars.com.
Uh, whether you're a regular cigar smoker or an occasional cigar smoker, I'm convinced you'll be very pleased with My Patriot Cigars, available at mypatriotscigars.com.
Don't forget to use promo code STONE.
All right, we are returning with Paul Kamenar, who is the counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center.
Enough with Ari Melber, I think we've done a good job of debunking everything this little twit has to say.
What are your thoughts on Special Counsel Jack Smith's decision to take the immunity claim directly to the U.S.
Supreme Court, Paul?
Yeah, no, that's a good question.
As we know, Trump's lawyer made a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Trump had absolute immunity, and he lost before Judge Chutkan, and then he filed his notice of appeal to the D.C.
Circuit.
Well, Jack Smith decided to leapfrog that whole process and go straight to the Supreme Court.
So, you know, this is something that's been done several times over the years on on important cases.
It's not unusual.
I kind of half expected he might do something like this.
But the Supreme Court.
has to decide to take this case in an expedited way.
So what happened was he filed his papers the other day, and he wanted Trump's lawyers to file their response by December 18th.
The Supreme Court said, look, we're going to give you to December 20th.
So next Wednesday is going to be a big day where Trump's lawyers will file their opposition to this hurry up and wait petition filed by Jack Smith, because there's really no reason why that has to be rushed.
So the court will decide probably either before Christmas or soon thereafter whether they will hear the case.
But then they'll have another decision as to how soon they will hear the case.
And Jack Smith wants it all done in a couple of weeks.
The court may say, look, we'll take the case, but, you know, we're not going to rush it.
And but they may still expedite it, but not in such a quick fashion.
So that'll probably go, if they do take the case, the briefing will probably go through the month of January, and then you have oral arguments, and then you have to wait for a decision.
What that all means is this March 4th date that Judge Chutkan set for the trial to begin is certainly going to be pushed back.
And how much pushback?
We'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does.
But the issue is, you know, whether the president has absolute immunity.
The Supreme Court has ruled in Nixon versus Fitzgerald that the president has absolute immunity for civil cases.
And that's where Fitzgerald, who was fired by Nixon, sued Nixon, and the court said, no, the president has absolute immunity for civil cases.
So this will be the first time whether the court will rule whether the president has absolute immunity for being charged for criminally.
And the issue is whether what he did during the January 6th period of time was within what's called his, quote, outer scope of his presidential or outer perimeter of his presidential powers.
End quote.
Meaning that if he was basically wanting to make sure the elections were fair, because after all, he's the president and he has the chief executive to make sure all our laws are carried out faithfully.
You were just a private candidate for this and you were doing this as a candidate.
I don't think that's right.
At the worst case, he may be wearing two hats.
But as long as one of those hats is that he was acting within the outer perimeter of his presidential authority, Then the court will have to decide whether to extend absolute immunity to a criminal context.
Now, what does that do to the case right now?
Right now, his case before Judge Chutkan is on hold because the law is once you file your appeal or a motion for immunity, absolute immunity, and it hasn't been definitively decided by the appeals court, the lower court has to I'll put a timeout on the case because if you're right, that means you shouldn't have been prosecuted to begin with.
You should have got to go through all this stuff for the trial and discovery and all these motions and all that.
So what Judge Chotkin did yesterday was saying, OK, I'll put a timeout on the case, but I'm going to keep the gag order in place and maybe some other ministerial things that are there.
That case is on hold.
And then if you want to talk about, we could talk about the January 6th case that the court granted cert on on a separate issue.
Should I get into that, Roger?
Let's come to that in a moment.
Let me ask you a few questions.
Is it fair to say, because I think this is all about timing, Jack Smith has no legal reason for filing this.
His reason is political.
He wants Trump's trial to take place during the presidential year.
He wants it to take place as early as possible to try to do as much damage as possible to Trump's candidacy.
Right now, were the current trial scheduled to remain in place, Trump would have been required to go to trial just before the Super Tuesday primary, in which the great bulk of the delegates who will decide who the next Republican presidential candidate is are selected.
So even the Washington Post, which is kind of like the blind pig finding the acorn once in a while.
Even the Washington Post and the propagandists and freaks there editorially came to the conclusion that Smith's action was based on politics.
So, is it fair to say that if Smith had not filed this motion, if Trump had gone through the appeals court, the appeals court had ruled against him on the immunity issue, and then he had appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, that that process would have taken longer than this current process as requested by Jack Smith?
Sure, there's no doubt.
If they went first to the Court of Appeals, it would have taken longer.
Now, the Court of Appeals itself Could expedite their review.
But that still takes time.
That still would take several months just to do an expedited appeal at the D.C.
Circuit.
And they also could have had a full what they call an en banc panel, namely all the 10 or 11 judges there to hear the case at once rather than the normal three-judge appeals court.
Because normally you go before a three-judge appeals court.
If you lose, you can have the whole 10 or 11 judges rehear it.
And then after that, it goes to the Supreme Court.
So you're right.
In the normal course, it would have gone to the Court of Appeals.
And even if it went before the full, you know, en banc court, we call it, it still would take several months, even if they wanted to expedite it.
So this was, you know, obviously a tactic by Jack Smith to get this case quickly to the Supreme Court, because eventually it would go there anyway.
But the question is, what's the rush?
The only rush is, as you said, is a political motivation.
Otherwise, if this was, if Trump, you know, was not running for office.
First off, he was not running for office.
None of these charges would have been brought in Georgia.
So let's assume he wasn't running for office at all.
And they nevertheless filed this criminal case.
They would have done this leapfrog to the Supreme Court because there was no rush for them.
What they want to do is actually affect the election, and that's why they're trying to get the Supreme Court to rush it.
Now, they said in their papers to the Supreme Court that they said, if you don't act on our petition and grant an expedited appeal, at least tell the Court of Appeals.
I mean, I have some personal experience with this particular appeals court.
I was gagged by the trial judge in my trial.
I believe that gag is unconstitutional.
couple weeks what the Supreme Court is going to do with this case.
I mean, I have some personal experience with this particular appeals court.
I was gagged by the trial judge in my trial.
I believe that gag is unconstitutional.
We filed a writ of mandamus with the appeals court.
They sat on it for eight long months, taking no action, all while I was taking in extraordinary damage from MSNBC and CNN and The Washington Post, unable to defend myself and And then, incredibly, they ruled that my writ was not ripe for a decision because I had not first asked the judge who had imposed the gag order on me
to remove it, which of course she never would have done.
So I wouldn't look to this appeals court for justice, just as having some experience in this particular circuit.
Let's go now to the question you raised, because on this I'm a little bit hazier.
The court agreed to hear a January 6th related case, essentially challenging, as I understand it, a specific law pertaining to the obstruction of an official proceeding.
Lay this out for us, Paul.
What is it that the court has decided to hear, and what are the implications Not only for January 6th defendants, but also for, if any, for President Donald Trump.
Right.
No, that's a good question.
The court did yesterday grant review in one of the January 6th cases.
In fact, there are a couple filed along with that as well that are basically raising the same issue.
And that is whether this provision that the Justice Department charged many of the January 6th defendants is with this section.
It's 18 U.S.C.
1512C that basically says That statute, let me just give some history, was enacted after the Enron case where Enron was shredding documents and so forth and the Congress and Enron was prosecuted and the Supreme Court, you know,
What happened there was the issue is whether that law covers shredding documents, to be sure, under Sarbanes-Oxley.
But now they took that law and are using it here to say, well, when you were storming the Capitol, you were, in effect, shredding documents here because the statute says you can't Destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with that evidentiary process before proceeding.
So the government is saying, well, these electoral votes that were cast in the box that Mike Pence had to read, you were trying to destroy That those votes and that's evidence and therefore we're going to stretch this law to cover that.
I mean, they used that same law some years ago in a case we were involved in where they went after a fisherman in Florida who was charged with violating some U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulation for catching fish that were too small. they used that same law some years ago in a
And what happened was the captain of the boat realized that the Coast Guard was on his tail and he threw some of these smaller fish into the water.
When he got to shore, they said, well, wait a minute, we got you throwing these fish away.
And that's like shredding documents in the Enron case.
And the Supreme Court basically laughed that out, saying, look, you can't take this law and use it for anything you want.
Congress has to be pretty clear about it.
So I think there's a very good argument here that this statute, which was used basically against many of the January 6th defendants, that they were obstructing justice by blocking the count of the electoral votes that were cast, doesn't apply to them.
And interesting enough, that's one of the counts against Donald Trump in the indictment.
There's four counts altogether against Trump by Jack Smith.
So if the Supreme Court rules on that case in favor of the January 6th defendant, that would automatically strike down at least one of the counts that involves Trump.
And that decision won't be rendered until the earliest is next May, in my opinion.
So stay tuned for what the court rules on that.
And if they do rule that it can't be applied to protests at the Capitol building, you'll see a lot of defendants that were convicted or pled guilty in that case have their convictions overturned.
Let me turn now to the other big item in the news.
House Republicans finally, finally voted to open an impeachment inquiry, whatever that means, into Joe Biden.
And Democrats, who must have blinders on, keep insisting that there's just no evidence whatsoever of corruption on behalf of the president, despite the fact that I think the House Oversight Committee has done an excellent job of providing more than enough despite the fact that I think the House Oversight Committee has done an excellent job of providing more than enough evidence, certainly more evidence than was present
Why, Paul, is a political question, not a legal question.
Why is it taking the House Republicans so long to take action?
And an impeachment inquiry doesn't guarantee the impeachment of Biden.
It took Nancy Pelosi five days.
Why don't they just vote articles of impeachment?
Let's go to a Senate trial if it's unlikely to get a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which is what I believe it would require.
But I think that the public exposure of these issues would be good for the American people and they could see the epic corruption of this president.
It's talking about timing.
The House Republicans don't seem to have politics in their timing at all, do they?
Right, exactly.
I think what's happening with this impeachment inquiry will still have some of the benefits you talked about, namely getting before the American people a lot of the evidence showing the corruption The bribery that was involved with Joe Biden and his relationship with his son Hunter Biden and getting all this foreign money and the influence peddling that was going on.
What it also does is give the House basically additional subpoena power to have these witnesses come before Congress.
Up until now, the White House has been saying with some of these committee subpoenas that Well, no, these subpoenas are just from the committee.
The full House hasn't given its stamp of approval.
So now that argument is gone.
Now that the whole House has voted on an impeachment inquiry, they can amass the evidence.
And then once that's all done, then they could have a resolution of impeachment itself.
Have the impeachment go forward with the votes and evidence and so forth, as they did with Donald Trump.
So at least the Republicans are showing an effect that they got, you know, at least giving better due process to Joe Biden than what the Democrats did to Donald Trump, where, as you said, in a matter of a few days, Nancy Pelosi Uh, submit articles of impeachment.
So I think, uh, to be sure it's been slow, but it's pathetical.
I think that they'll get some good evidence.
And however, we saw what happened, uh, with, with Hunter Biden yesterday, where he basically thumbed his nose, uh, at, at the house committee for their subpoena.
But that was, uh, one where they're going to have to hold him in contempt of Congress, but don't hold your breath that, that Merrick Garland will, uh, File criminal charges against Hunter Biden as he did with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro when they didn't comply with the subpoenas from the January 6th committee.
Precisely why when I received a subpoena I fulfilled my legal obligation.
I showed up required by law and I elected to assert my Fifth Amendment right.
What people don't understand is when you choose to do that you must answer every question with your Fifth Amendment objection.
You can't pick and choose which questions to answer.
So when people like Ari Melber use selective questions on which General Flynn No, Ari, I'm sorry.
You're a lawyer.
You know better.
It proves nothing.
I'm Roger Stone.
They're trying to give you the false implication that we wouldn't answer that specific question.
Well, having been caught up in this trap before where they twist the things you say into a process of crime, I elected not to answer any of their questions.
But I showed up in fulfillment of my legal obligation and I asserted my Fifth Amendment right.
No, Ari, I'm sorry.
You're a lawyer.
You know better.
It proves nothing.
I'm Roger Stone.
We're going to take a quick commercial break and we'll be right back.
I'm excited to announce that we're having our biggest Christmas sale ever.
You get our brand new six-piece my towels for only $29.98 or rejuvenate your bed with a MyPillow mattress topper as low as $99.99!
Or how about MyPillow bed sheets for as low as $24.98?
There's something for everyone.
Duvets, quilts, down comforters, body pillows, bolster pillows, and so much more.
Well, I know MyPillow products make for the perfect Christmas gifts, so I'm going to extend my money-back guarantee until March 1st, 2024.
So go to MyPillow.com now or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to get huge discounts on all MyPillow products.
For example, you get our six-piece towels for only $29.98.
Or get your very own MyPillow bed sheets for as low as $24.98.
It's our biggest Christmas sale ever!
Get all your shopping done now while quantities last.
Get all your shopping done now.
Get all your shopping done now.
Get all your shopping done now.
Looks like you've been sleeping well.
Megan!
He's back!
The MyPillow guy!
And you're looking good!
Still feeling good!
Well just when you thought it couldn't get any better, we've got the best pillow ever!
MyPillow 2.0!
When I invented MyPillow, it had everything you'd ever want in a pillow.
Well, now there's new technology that makes it even better.
MyPillow 2.0 has my patented fill combined with a cooling fabric with temperature regulating thread.
MyPillow 2.0 is truly the next generation of MyPillow.
The best sleep just got even better.
Whether you have a MyPillow or not, you need to get the brand new MyPillow 2.0!
Call or go to MyPillow.com now.
Use your promo code and for a limited time when you buy one, you'll get a second one absolutely free!
You're sleeping even better!
And cooler too!
And you're looking good!
Feeling good!
I knew you would!
Visit MyPillow.com!
Folks please do all of your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
Now by going to MyPillow.com and using promo code STONE you get absolute free shipping on all orders right up until December 15th.
Well, when I say do all your Christmas shopping, I have one other recommendation.
If there's someone in your family who loves politics, history, and mysteries, let me recommend The Man Who Killed Kennedy, the case against LBJ.
This is my New York Times best-selling book in which I use fingerprint evidence, eyewitness evidence, and deep Texas politics to make the compelling case Lyndon Baines Johnson orchestrated a coup involving the CIA organized crime The FBI, the Secret Service, and Big Texas Oil to murder John F. Kennedy.
You could go to Google or Barnes and Noble, but why give money to a multinational corporation that hates your guts?
I urge you to buy your book by going to TheManWhoKilledKennedy.com.
By going to TheManWhoKilledKennedy.com for this Christmas present, You will get a signed, even a personalized copy if you wish.
So please go to themanwhokilledkennedy.com and order your copy of this New York Times bestselling book.
I think you will enjoy it and it makes the perfect Christmas gift.
Returning now to our guest, Paul Kaminar, who is counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, one of the more astute observers of both law and politics.
Paul, have you examined the indictment that was finally announced against Hunter Biden only days ago?
Oh yeah, I did.
He was charged with three felony counts and six misdemeanors for evading taxes, not paying taxes, taking business deductions that involved paying prostitutes, $188,000 for adult entertainment, $10,000 to join a sex club.
I mean, these are all business deductions.
He's listed.
I don't know what business he was in.
Maybe he was a porno movie producer and needed to get some information for his films.
But seriously, it really is remarkable that it took this long.
This has been going on for some five or six years.
And as we know, they try to Push this under the rug.
Earlier this year in Delaware, where they were trying to basically take these tax charges and have that basically as a misdemeanor and wrapped in with the gun charge, which would be dropped if Hunter was a good boy.
And the judge there, thank God, said, no, I'm not being part of this.
This doesn't make any sense to have this kind of a sweetheart deal.
And also thank God for the two iris whistleblowers who at that time came forward and showed how the Justice Department was basically working Hand in glove with the Biden, Hunter Biden's attorneys to cover this up.
The IRS agents were told not to look at any connection between any of these tax charges and Joe Biden.
Joe Biden was off limits.
His Hunter Biden's laptop were told, no, you can't look at that either.
And so what happened was those that plea deal went south.
And then Mayor Garland said, OK, I'm going to appoint David Weiss, who was the U.S.
attorney in the case.
I hereby dub you as special counsel.
And that involved a lot of back and forth.
And Lying to Congress because there was letters going back and forth from Merrick Garland and David Weiss, whether he had the authority to file these charges in other jurisdictions.
And David Weiss told the IRS agents, no, I can't file these tax charges in other jurisdictions, only in Delaware.
But they weren't, you know, that wasn't a proper form.
Merrick Garland comes back and says, oh no, David Weiss has full authority to file this anywhere.
And during a press conference at that time, he was asked by a member of the press, well, why don't you appoint him a special counsel?
And he said, and I'm basically quoting, oh, David Weiss has more authority than a special counsel.
I go, well, wait a minute.
If he has more authority as a special counsel when he was then only a U.S.
attorney, does that mean now he has less authority now that you appointed him as a special counsel?
The whole thing doesn't make any sense.
So what's happening is that Hunter Biden will have to face the music here.
He could be facing up to 17 years in prison for these tax violations.
David Weiss let the violations, tax violations for 2014 expire.
That was the whole burisma money he was making because the statute of limitations ran out by the time they got around to file this indictment.
I don't know what took him so long to do this.
And then you have Hunter Biden come in And, you know, basically thumb his nose at Congress and says that these tax charges would not have been filed if my last name were anything other than Biden.
Well, you know, if your name was not Biden, you wouldn't have gotten all this money to begin with.
And it's clear that these charges are long overdue.
And I predict that Abby Lowe, who you know as well, one of the top defense attorneys in town, I don't know.
Even if he tries to cut a deal and pleads guilty to some of the charges, I predict he's facing at least one to three years of hard time behind bars for these tax violations.
And then, of course, where are all the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations?
Our organization, the National Legal Policy Center, we filed a complaint over three years ago with the Justice Department saying, hey, Hunter Biden should be charged with these FARA violations for being basically a foreign agent of Burisma, of the Chinese Energy Company, and so forth, and peddling, you know, his lobbying for these foreign entities here in the United States.
That's a pure violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
I think this is very obvious.
The reason we let the Burisma matter expire is because it brings you right to Joe Biden's doorstep.
Well, you know, come on.
I mean, you have the evidence either put up or shut up.
And he's letting more of the status limitations expire the longer he waits on any other future charges.
I think this is very obvious.
The reason we let the Burisma matter expire is because it brings you right to Joe Biden's doorstep.
I'm tired of watching online people saying, oh, Roger Stone and his wife evaded $2.6 million in taxes, but Hunter paid.
No.
We reported every single dime, every penny, and all assets accurately, and I made eight years of payments to bring my tax debt down.
I'm being sued for one reason, because of my inability to pay, and because under the law, My tax debts were about to expire.
They were more than 10 years old.
So I would not have been charged if my last name was not Stone.
In fact, 75% of the two plus million dollars that I owe the IRS is interest and penalty.
So normally, in compromise, you can negotiate interest and penalty down, but not if your name is Roger Stone.
All right.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.
Let me thank my guest.
Also, my friend, Attorney Paul Kemenar, counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center for joining us today at the Stone Show.
Thanks for joining us, folks.
Folks, God bless you and Godspeed.
My Towels solved the problem that we've all had with towels.
You go into the stores and they feel lotion-y and soft, but then you get them home and they wouldn't dry you.
That's why I made My Towels.
They actually work, they're soft, and they absorb.
And now I'm excited to announce two brand new lines of My Towels.
What makes them the best towels ever is they're now made with 100% long staple Shapir cotton.
This is a combed ring-spun cotton that makes my towels even softer and more absorbent than ever.
And now you get a six-piece set for an amazing introductory sale price as low as $29.98.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to get my towels for only $29.98.
Or you can get my designer premium line for just $20 more.
Either way, you save 50% now on all my towels.
They actually work!
What a concept!
This offer won't last long, so please order now.
▲
Export Selection