All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
54:12
A TRUMP-RFK TICKET? Fake News Tsunami! Roger Stone in The StoneZONE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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, well, you're back in the Stone Zone.
It's always hard on Mondays to sort through all the political news because, of course, the Stone Zone is all about politics.
First a little housekeeping matter.
There seems to be this strange subset of people claiming to be MAGA out there on the internet who question the loyalty of myself and General Michael Flynn to President Donald Trump.
Anyone who doubts my relationship with the President can take a look at this.
A man who's gone through hell.
But he's kept going, and he's smart, and he's strong, and people love him.
Not everybody, but people love him and respect him.
Roger Stone.
or perhaps they should take a look at this.
Thanks.
And a friend of mine for a long time, he only likes politics.
If you ask him about how are the Yankees doing, he has no interest.
If you ask him almost anything, He likes politics and he's a professional at the highest level.
Roger Stone.
Where's Roger?
Thank you, Roger.
Thank you.
If that is being pushed, is that I wanted General Flynn, who is a good friend of mine, I admire enormously.
To supplant Donald Trump as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
This is categorically false.
There is no question that I told General Flynn that if for some reason President Trump elected not to run, or if there was some reason that he was legally incapacitated and wasn't able to run, well, that I thought General Flynn would be preferable to Ron DeSantis or any of the RINOs.
Today, of course, it is a moot point.
The president is not only running, but he's running strongly, and General Flynn and I are both strongly supporting him.
Glad we were able to sort that out.
By the way, there's a guy named Mike Gill who seems to be the progenitor of all this.
I don't know Mr. Gill.
I've never had any contact or association with him.
I'm unaware of what his allegations are, but I keep hearing from third parties that he's defaming me.
I don't know Gil, I don't know what his claims are, but they are nonsense if they question my loyalty to Donald Trump or the loyalty of General Flynn.
Big news over the weekend, a story in the New York Post by John Levine claimed that agents Or not really clear.
those representing President Donald Trump had reached out to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the potential of being vice president.
Within minutes, this story was shot down.
There's the headline by Mr. Levine.
But shortly thereafter, Chris LaCivita, who is the co-campaign manager for Donald Trump, posted a immediate rebuttal—there it is—on X, formerly known as Twitter.
That, in turn, has been picked up by the media.
And here's the following New York Post headline.
But that, in turn, was followed up by a post this morning in which Robert Kennedy said he was indeed approached.
Now, I know the folks in the Trump campaign, they vehemently deny this, but there are in politics people Who are, you know, freelancers, those who don't really have authorization, who don't speak for the candidate.
By the way, I don't.
He's just a friend and I'm a supporter, but I have no authority to speak for him.
But there are people out there who may have designated themselves as trying to put together some kind of combination here.
I suspect that is what happened.
I do want to say, once again, that a report last week by Sebastian Gorka, who claimed that the vice presidential candidate had already been chosen, and that it was former Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York, is inaccurate, and that is false.
If President Donald Trump has selected a running mate, well, he hasn't told me yet, nor has he told anyone.
He says he has, and he may have, but it is known only to him.
In fact, if there's even an official shortlist, it's known only to him and tightly held by his campaign staffers.
This is an open question because, in my opinion, you can't know who the Republican candidate for vice president is going to be until you know who the Democratic candidate for president and vice president are going to be.
If you look at the Las Vegas Oddmakers, Michelle Obama now considered in Las Vegas the third most likely person to be nominated, or pardon me, elected President of the United States.
That is something that I predicted, as you know, some time ago.
I didn't really realize that the Oddmakers had seized on this until it was brought to my attention by Patrick Ben-David.
When I ran into him on Sunday.
Not insignificant in my opinion.
Some bad news for Steve Bannon.
Mr. Bannon and I have had our past differences.
I'm praying for him because I know what it is to be in the crosshairs of the deep state.
Last week, prosecutors in New York dismissed I should say the court dismissed a claim by Mr. Bannon that the charges against him in connection with the financial fraud at We Build the Wall campaign should be dismissed.
According to ABC News, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon's attempts to dismiss his fraud indictment bear little resemblance to reality, Manhattan prosecutors said Tuesday in a new court filing.
Has pled not guilty in the case, and a trial is scheduled for May.
The Manhattan District Attorney said Bannon defrauded donors to the nonprofit organization by falsely promising that none of the money they donated would be used to pay the salary of We Build the Fall president Brian Kolfage.
Kolfage, by the way, has pled guilty and has already been sentenced and is serving prison time.
It says that Bannon secretly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage by laundromat through third parties.
Now, again, no one in America is guilty until proven guilty, and Mr. Bannon is innocent until proven guilty, but this trial appears to be scheduled for May.
Again, I pray for Steve Bannon.
I have been in those crosshairs.
Joining me now to break down the rest of the political news is my co-host Troy Smith, who is the editor-at-large at Reuter.us.
Roger, honored to be here today.
We've got a lot of stuff to break down and it's a new week, folks, so a whole new news cycle.
It is quite extraordinary how much political news is made over the weekend.
We actually have to sort through the many, many stories to try to figure out what exactly to cover.
Last week, as you know, was kind of a A difficult week for my wife and I. It was the fifth anniversary of the FBI raid on my home on January 25th, 2019.
29 fully SWAT-clad FBI agents brandishing fully automatic semi-M4 assault weapons stormed my home at 6 o'clock in the morning in a pre-dawn raid.
They arrived in 17 armored vehicles.
There was a government helicopter above.
There were two amphibious units pulling up on the dock because I lived on a canal in Fort Lauderdale behind the house.
And of course, there was no reason for this.
The government argued that I had to be taken down in this way because I was a flight risk.
Five hours later, at arraignment, the government asked for no cash bond, and I was released on my own reconnaissance, proving, of course, that I was never a flight risk.
The government was well aware of the fact that I did not have a valid passport, did not own a firearm, and I'm obviously extremely recognizable.
I posted a piece to Substack, you can also see it at stonezone.com, in which I make the case that I did nothing wrong, I broke no laws, that I was very cleverly framed with process crimes in an effort to pressure me into testifying falsely against President Donald Trump.
In order to commemorate the pardon that I ultimately received, you can now go to StoneZone.com, where we have a new commemorative coin, which speaks to this horrific experience. which speaks to this horrific experience.
You can go to stonezone.com and see this fabulous coin.
It is a great value.
There's a very limited number of these, and I think folks are going to like them.
Of course, you could also order the Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong t-shirt, which I was actually wearing at the time of my arrest.
Go buy StoneZone.com, there's a great story about this, but also get your commemorative coin while you are there.
All right, let's move on here with the news.
Troy, what do you make of this Schumer-Lankford border deal that seems to be hung up in the U.S.
Senate, where James Lankford presumably, or by his telling, a conservative Republican From a burgundy red state, seems to have approved a deal that includes allowing 5,000 illegals to come through, I guess it is, per day.
This doesn't sound like a obscure border to me.
What's gotten into James Langford?
He ran in the primary as a border hawk.
Well, Roger, you know, this is a reoccurring trend here, and I was kind of alarmed to see over the weekend, watching the news, because I always, you know, we have some kind of political news on here at all times, and I was listening to Lindsey Graham and Tom Tillis and others tell us that this deal on the border is the best deal that we are going to get.
And they added that if Trump were to get elected, that making a deal on the border would actually be more difficult.
And, you know, dissecting that, Roger, what that sounds like to me is, hey, if Trump's here, he's not going to sign off on this bill.
And that's what exactly that means.
That's what it means for Lankford and all these people.
They're not going to be able to sell us out if Donald Trump gets into office.
So, Roger, why don't they sign it now so that Biden can sign it and that we can continue to have this surge at the border?
We can legally allow people to just pour in $5,000 a day into the country.
It sounds like They are trying to prepare for what they know is coming, which is 2024, the presidential election.
They know that the American people are looking at the Biden administration.
They're looking at how things are going in D.C.
and they're saying, yeah, this isn't going to last very long.
And they look at Donald Trump and the popularity he has and the fact that no matter how much the press and the legal system attacks him, he continues to rise in the polls.
And they know You posted something this morning, Roger, a five to six odd that Donald Trump is going to win in Vegas, the presidential election in 2024.
That means he is a heavy, heavy, heavy favorite to win this thing.
And that's why I think it's important for people to realize the best deal that the Republicans can get right now is a terrible deal for you, the people.
I just don't see how maybe I'm being obtuse.
It's really criminal, Roger, the fact that we have people that are allowing what's going on at the border, not addressing it, but putting forth legislation that's actually going to continue the lawlessness.
It's just ridiculous.
I just don't see how, maybe I'm being obtuse, I don't see how the Biden administration benefits politically from a deal that essentially allows 5,000 people a day to cross our border and then will somehow claim that the border has been sealed or that the issue has been fixed. people a day to cross our border and then will most.
What is your take on the entire struggle between Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration at Eagle Pass?
And why Eagle Pass?
That's another question that keeps coming up.
Well, you know, Roger, when we're talking about the border, we're talking about a lot of areas that, you know, it's hard, we don't have the defenses, we don't have, and you remember President Trump, I mean, we talked about a $6 billion border wall.
We've sent over $200 billion to Ukraine, we wanted $6 billion for a border wall, and the Democrats kicked and dragged their feet and said that it was going to be bankrupt in the United States if we put money into the border.
So there's sections of the border that are completely porous, that have been for some time.
And people just kind of waltz across these things.
And I think if you're looking for a reason as to why the border and why Abbott and this fight is so important, it's because we're talking about an invasion.
And Abbott puts it well.
The number of illegal immigrants that have passed the border during this administration is greater than the population of many states here in the United States of America.
So we have we have more people pouring into the country through the border than we do in several states in this country.
That is terrifying.
And when you think about the implications of that culturally, economically, you're talking about a huge disaster for the people who actually live here.
And I think what adds on top of it, Roger, is the fact that these people come in and they get preferential treatment.
They get special treatment.
And in the schools, we use taxpayer money to To pay for more teachers to come in who speak Spanish so that they can interpret what these kids who come across the border are saying, because they don't speak English at home.
That kind of thing.
I mean, the idea that the American taxpayer is on the hook here for this bill is really what this is all about.
Our country is being bankrupted from within.
And the Democrats think, Roger, that they can bring in these people from the third world And that they will start voting Democrat.
And I think, one, they're going to be mistaken there.
And two, they're not going to be minded like we are politically.
These people come from areas that are dirt poor.
They don't have the same values.
They don't have the same ideas about life and success and things of that nature.
So for the Democrats, it's not that they get a voter base almost, it's that they get people with lowered expectations.
And they get people who they can provide not all that much to.
They can have a rotting country with cities that you can't go into.
And for them, it's actually an improvement from where they come from.
It's a lowered standard that they're having.
And the more of these people that they can come in, the more they can justify their policies, the easier it is for them to get away with destroying our country.
Because it's easier to bring in people who don't know how good it was than to make things better for the people who remember how good it was.
It's very interesting that in New York City, which has had a huge influx of illegal migrants, the city first put the migrants into luxury hotels that they essentially commandeered.
The Roosevelt Hotel, which is on the National Registry of Landmarks, has become a migrant center.
Then when they moved the migrants out to a tent facility, which essentially in a field, the migrants were unhappy with the accommodations and demanded to be moved back to the luxury hotels.
You and I are all paying for this.
It's interesting that in the Iowa caucuses, the number one issue in the entry polls was immigration.
In the New Hampshire primary, the number one issue in the exit polls was immigration.
I don't see this issue fading regardless of what the Congress does.
I'm still, frankly, trying to sort out the politics of it, to be honest with you.
Well, Roger, let me add real quickly, just on that note, on MSNBC and these liberal networks, they actually say, well, you know, it's just because of Fox News.
It's because of Fox News that people in New Hampshire and Iowa are worried about the border.
It's because of Fox News that these people are worried about the southern border, which is so far away from them.
They can't understand that it's a cultural impact on the entirety of our nation, and that these people, whether they're 3,000 miles away from the border or three miles from the border, they feel the same impact.
Well, you have the mayor of New York City, the mayor of Chicago, both saying that financially they're at the breaking point.
That wasn't invented by Fox News.
You have a fentanyl crisis in the country.
As I've said on the show, my own nephew, my sister's only son, passed now a little under two weeks ago from a fentanyl overdose.
This is something we feel very deeply in our family.
We're not imagining this.
We have a crime epidemic.
We have a fentanyl epidemic.
We have the shifting of social service spending away from Americans who are in need to illegals who are in need.
I feel badly for them as well, by the way.
But the idea that this is going to recede as an issue is just false.
I want to talk about the E. Jean Carroll case and decision in New York City, but before we do that, I want to take the opportunity to remind you that our show today is sponsored by the great folks at MyPillow.com.
MyPillow.com is, of course, The major business vehicle of that great free speech advocate and election integrity advocate, Mike Lindell.
And if you go to MyPillow.com right now and you use promo code Stone, there are some great, great specials there that you can take advantage of.
I'm a great fan of their Men and women's terrycloth bathrobes.
Those are on special.
They have a wide, lush shawl collar.
I'm also a big fan, as many know, of the MyPillow dog beds.
If you're an animal lover, suitable for either dogs or cats, these protect your furniture, protect your floors, protect your rugs, but allow your pets to And if you're going to go for the dog beds, well, you're going to want the MyPillow Pet Blankets.
The blankets allow you to do what we do, crank the air conditioning down at night so it remains cool, but still have my babies be warm and toasty.
Whether it is the men and women's moccasin slippers, or whether it is the towel sets.
On special or whether it is the famous high quality sheets.
There are many, many great products at MyPillow.com.
Just remember to use promo code STONE so that you get your discount.
Now, you can go to MyPillow.com or you can dial 1-800-544-8939, 1-800-544-8939 to place your offer now.
Troy Smith joins me again in the Stone Zone today.
He is the editor-in-chief of Rare.us, and I guess the biggest story this weekend Was the decision in the E. Jean Carroll case in New York City.
Now, E. Jean Carroll had already won a judgment against Donald Trump in which a jury held that while Trump did not rape Ms.
Carroll, he did sexually assault Ms.
Carroll and he defamed her.
This is the take of the great Victor Hanson Davis.
I can't put it better than this, so I'm going to go through this.
Donald Trump's infurer stormed out of New York courtroom for a while in the defamation suit brought by the author and dating boyfriend sex advice columnist, E. Jean Carroll.
It was just settled against Trump for $83 million.
The Carroll suit was largely subsidized by a man named Reid Hoffman, the billionaire capitalist and mega-donor of the Democratic Party and left-wing causes.
subtext of Donald Trump's rage, aside from the outrageous monetary size of the defamation ruling, is that he is facing and angered a left-wing claimant, a quite equally hostile left-wing judge, and a left-wing New York jury.
The civil suit serves as a mere preview for additional left-wing criminal prosecutions, left-wing judges, and left-wing juries to come, all on charges that would never have been filed if Trump either was not running for president or was a liberal progressive.
Yet, here we are.
The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all of them.
She's the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago.
Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.
It was never clear what the preliminaries supposedly, Trump denies ever meeting her, by the way, led both of them allegedly willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room during normal business hours where the alleged violence took place.
Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades after the fact and only after Trump was running and then for president.
Terrell eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.
Her claims of defamation injuries arise from being fired from her advice column job at Elle magazine.
She claimed that Trump's sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led to the ruin of her career.
But the loss for anyone of a column at the age of 76 did not seem to be such a rare occurrence.
In the absence of a salary job in one's late 70s for four years does not seem to add up to $83 million in terms of a hit.
The noted allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly, by the way, denied by the magazine that fired her.
But then a strange thing happened.
In 2022, a new law, called the Adult Survivors Act, was passed in the New York State Legislature.
It was also an after-the-fact act, established a 12-month window, which began six months after the signing of the bill, that permitted survivors of long-ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator, regardless of the previous statute of limitations.
The unexpected openings suddenly gave Carol's prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth, and she quickly refiled with the help of an arch Trump-hating billionaire, Reid Hoffman, a man who, by the way, visited Epstein's Island several times and is a major donor to Nikki Haley's presidential campaign.
More interestingly, he had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill, the TRUST Act.
Pardon me, let me back up.
The bill was introduced in the legislature by a state legislator named Brad Hoyleman-Siga, known as another Trump antagonist.
More interestingly, this gentleman had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill, the TRUST Act, which empowered particular federal congressional committees To have full access to New York State's once sealed income tax records for high-ranking government officials such as Donald Trump.
The bill's generally agreed subtext was a green light for anti-Trump members of Congress to obtain legal access to Trump's tax returns.
So there's an eerie feeling that the New York legislature may have abruptly passed legislation that was aimed at the past conduct of Donald Trump, but only after he entered the political arena.
While these are not quite bills of attainder, they're somewhat unsettling in that they are ex post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America, And today, the leading candidate for president.
In essence, they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump's prior legal unactual behavior suddenly quite legally actionable.
Trump will be subject to special treatment all summer and all fall.
Prosecutors Bragg, James Smith, and Willis will synchronize their court business for maximum effect.
Trump will again face left-wing prosecutors, judges, and juries on charges that are politically driven, involving alleged behavior that is either usually not criminalized or not to the same degree as in Trump's case.
Do we remember the nearly $375,000 federal fine belatedly leveled at an exempt Obama but only five years after his 2008 illegal garnering of, and not reporting of, Massive foreign campaign contributions.
The stakes are higher each day as Trump closes in on the Republican nomination and thus becomes the hope to half the people in the country to end the Biden madness.
Somehow Trump will have to stay calm and give no opening to his legion of hostile prosecutors while conducting a nonstop campaign against Biden and for a while against Nikki Haley while fighting to keep his name on various state ballots.
So what we're witnessing is not even the extra legal efforts of Steele, Fusion, GPS, Perkins Coie, the DNC, Hillary Clinton in 2016, or the 2020 Russian collusion, Roos, changing the voter laws, infusing a half billion dollars to absorb the work of registrar machinations against Trump, which is done by Mr. Zuckerberg.
Still, Trump will have to soldier on.
He must stay controlled amid the tsunamis, not play into the hands of his accusers, and remember that he may soon be the only 11th hour hope to stop this mockery of American law, customs, and traditions.
The great Victor Hanson Davis sums this up quite well.
Now we also know how this lawsuit came to be.
Evidently, Ms.
Carroll ran into George Conway, the famously anti-Trump lawyer, At a cocktail party at the home of the odious Molly Jong Fast.
And it was then that he proposed getting Mr. Hoffman to finance a lawsuit.
It's hard to say where in the plan this change in state law came in.
But Alina Haba, the president's lawyer, who was unable to address much of this in the courtroom, did have something to say outside the courtroom.
Let's roll that.
No, no, no.
I'm glad you asked me that question.
No, I'm not having any second thoughts about representing President Trump.
It is the proudest thing I could ever do.
What I am having second thoughts about is the license that I stand here with that the people in there are supposed to have.
I have not spoken because I respect my ethics while I'm on trial.
But let me now speak about what has happened.
I have sat on trial after trial for months in this state, the state of New York.
Attorney General Letitia James, and now this.
Weeks.
Weeks.
Why?
Because President Trump is leading in the polls, and now we see what you get in New York.
So don't get it twisted, whoever asked me that question.
I am so proud to stand with President Trump, but I am not proud to stand with what I saw in that courtroom.
I'm not finished.
Let me just finish, and I'll take questions, please.
Before I walked into court, that judge decided that every single defense President Trump had we were not allowed to raise in front of the jury.
It is in writing, and I encourage the journalists, the real journalists, to take the minute to look at his orders.
There was no proof.
And I couldn't prove that she didn't bring in the dress.
There was no DNA.
There was no expert.
My experts were denied.
Two of them, two of them were denied to come in.
They didn't let me bring up that Reid Hoffman funded Ms.
Kaplan.
And you know what we got in there?
That my witness, who was her friend, who said that she is a drug addict and the drug addict is herself.
That friend, I found out in there, was paid for by Ms.
Kaplan's firm, and that is disgusting.
That is a violation of everything I stand for, and that is why I stand with Trump.
And that is why so many Americans are so proud that he is running again and so excited to run to the ballot box.
But don't get it twisted.
We are seeing a violation of our justice system.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are not allowed to be stripped of every defense that you have.
You are not allowed to be told that you can't bring it up.
And imagine a point where a judge tells the lawyer before your client, the former president of the United States, the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the Republican Party, before he takes the stand to defend himself, Ms.
Haba, Tell me the questions you're going to ask in open court and tell me exactly what he's going to respond.
And then edited my questions.
Edited the response he was allowed to give.
And guess what my client did?
He took the stand.
He abided by the rules of this corrupt system that I have seen.
We will immediately appeal.
We will set aside that ridiculous jury.
And I just want to remind you all of one thing.
I will continue with President Trump to fight for everybody's First Amendment right to speak.
Everybody's right to defend themselves when they are wrongfully accused.
And to be able to say, I didn't do it.
And to double and triple and quadruple down and say this is wrong.
This is wrong.
But we are in the state of New York.
We are in a New York jury and that is why we are seeing these witch hunts, these hoaxes as he calls them.
And this is another one of them.
Be brought in New York.
In states where they know they will get juries like this.
It will not deter us from fighting.
And I assure you, we didn't win today, but we will win.
The record that was made in there, and the behavior I saw in there, some of which was reported widely today, gave us the most perfect record on appeal, and even if I needed it, which I don't.
We were stripped of every defense.
Every single defense before we walked in there.
And I am proud to stand with President Trump.
Because he showed up, he stood up, he took the stand, and he faced this judge.
And you know what?
I'll continue to do so with him.
Yes.
Of course I've spoken with the President.
The former President does not live his life in fear, as you've seen every single day.
The former President, and probably future President, will continue to fight for Americans.
Thank you very much everybody.
A fire response by Lena Haba.
Before I go to Troy Smith to his reaction, I know that both in the first trial and in the second trial, the president and his lawyers were not allowed to play this interview from CNN with E. Jean Carroll.
Let's roll that.
I think most people think of rape as a violent assault.
I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
Let's take a short break.
Think of the fantasies.
We're going to take a quick break.
If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side.
You're fascinating to talk to.
I've never seen anybody move to a short break so fast in my entire life.
We also learned over the weekend that that Ms.
Carol claimed that she was wearing a specific Donna Karan dress at the time of the sexual assault, but it has now been determined that this dress, which she appears on the cover of New York Magazine wearing, was actually not made until 1994, which would have been after the date, was actually not made until 1994, which would have been after the date, generally, that she claims this Troy, what is your take on all of this?
Roger, and I think I'm going to kick this back to you at some point here because if there's anybody that understands what a witch hunt is, it's definitely you.
But I think we're looking at the dress.
I mean, the dress is a perfect example.
I mean, she's out there parading around this dress, and it actually wasn't created during the time that she says it was worn during this alleged assault.
And, you know, I got some heat for saying that it was an alleged assault, alleged rape, and people, you know, they got mad at that.
I mean, look, the truth is, I think that if we all look at the evidence, you know, I don't think that there's any question that President Trump is being raked over the coals here.
And I think Alina put it very well there, that, you know, when you're in a courtroom and you can't bring up the fact that the people that are coming at you were funded by a donor to one of your main political opponents, that would seem kind of important.
Reid Hoffman is somebody who's been financing a lot of anti-Trump stuff for many years.
And, Roger, who in court can't submit evidence?
I mean, that's what court is about.
It's about bringing up the evidence and getting to the truth of the matter.
And the idea that he's in that courtroom with his hands tied behind his back kind of reveals exactly what the establishment wants to do.
Because they want to make this about, you know, fighting Trump and they want to make this about taking him down in the polls.
They don't want him to have open responses.
They don't want him to be able to debunk what they're saying.
So instead of allowing – so they bring him into the court anyway.
And instead of allowing him to present the evidence and the factual things, you know, pertaining to the case, they simply tie his hands behind his back.
And all of a sudden he can't talk about, you know, legitimate evidence.
And I've never seen anything like it.
I'm interested to see, Roger, you've been in politics for so long and paid attention to this for so long.
Have you ever seen anything like this before out of a courtroom?
I mean, this just seems like pure insanity.
It's very similar to what I experienced in a D.C.
courtroom.
The underlying premise of my indictment was that the Russians had hacked online, performed an online hack on the Democratic National Committee.
I was denied the right to use forensic evidence or expert testimony to demonstrate that there was no evidence of that.
The government kept insisting that it happened, but they had no proof of it.
They relied solely on the CrowdStrikes document, which CrowdStrikes being a third party hired by the Democratic National Committee.
which allegedly had examined the computer servers.
The FBI admitted in my trial that they had never examined the computer servers.
The judge denied us the copy of that report, denied us the ability to call those witnesses or question them.
I was also specifically prohibited from raising the question of any misconduct or corruption by the special counsel's office, the Department of Justice, any member of Congress, the FBI.
That's specifically unconstitutional under Kyle v. Whitley.
I wasn't allowed to challenge the underlying premise of my indictment.
There was no online hack of the Democratic National Committee.
And then when we attempted to say that, the government filed a very rare surreply in which they said they had additional evidence of the hack, but it was It was national security so they could not release it and they could not submit it, which is of course a lie.
There is no such evidence.
So yeah, I guess I have seen this kind of railroading in the past and I do think this is a key point.
These are civil trials where Trump is allowed to speak.
The gag against him Or I should say on him was upheld in DC.
That is a criminal trial where he will not be allowed to defend himself in public on matters pertaining specifically to the charges against him.
It's not at all like a civil trial.
It's really quite different.
You were not with us for the opening of the show, but I do want to go back to this for a moment.
He said, she said regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr., big story, the New York Post picked up at Gateway and a number of other places that some emissary for the Trump campaign reached out to Robert Kennedy to feel him out about running for vice president.
Then a strong statement by Chris LaCivita, for whom I have enormous respect, saying this is completely untrue.
Followed up by a statement by Robert Kennedy saying, well, I was reached out by somebody on Trump's team.
I guess the larger question is this could never work.
You have two alpha males whose philosophies are generally much more diverse than people think.
They may agree on a few issues, but Robert Kennedy is a radical climate change advocate.
He is for abortion on demand.
He's for reparations.
There are just two major issues on which the two candidates Disagree.
Is it good that Robert Kennedy now wants to seal the border?
Yes, I applaud him for that.
But being president is broader than that one issue.
What's curious to me also this weekend are a number of stories that say that Robert Kennedy is now beginning to court the Libertarian Party.
Now, the Libertarian Party has automatically, I think, ballot status in about I think it's a legitimate question.
He has said that is his intention.
based on history, my own involvement with them in 2012, the ability and the manpower and the know-how to petition their way on the balance of the states.
But does this mean that Robert Kennedy's efforts to get on the ballot as an independent through that same process are foundering?
I think it's a legitimate question.
He has said that is his intention.
He has set publicly a goal of raising $15 million.
Why is he now suddenly speaking to libertarians when several months ago he said that he would not be interested in the Libertarian Party nomination?
Thank you.
Well, Roger, it's quite concerning, I think, for anybody who's kind of watched this develop.
And it's important for people to realize, as you pointed out in one of our prior shows, when RFK was running as a Democrat, he posed to benefit the Trump candidacy, I think, tremendously, by raising important issues, by kind of challenging Joe Biden for the Democrat nomination.
And I think the switch that ultimately happened there was he realized that he couldn't really sell what he was selling to the Democrat Party as a whole because he didn't want to play the identity politics.
Because, you know, I agree that RFK is a he is a absolutely a radical climate change Democrat when it comes to his green policies and things like that.
But as far as the LGBTQ stuff and the racial stuff, he is not anywhere near where we see the Democrat Party today.
He is much more towards the right as far as that stuff is concerned.
So we realize, I think, you know, and it was evident in the polls, he wasn't appealing to Democrats.
And that's where this gets dangerous, because that's what he decides that he's going to become an independent.
And I think that was the moment that he became a danger to the Trump campaign, because you and I have talked about these polls.
We talked about it on your WABC show.
It is unquestionable that RFK Jr.
as an independent, whether he's libertarian or whether he's just on his own, takes away a lot more votes from Donald Trump than he does Joe Biden.
And as we've seen him progress, he's getting a lot of the celebrity support that we saw from Joe or that we saw from Barack Obama and things of that nature.
It's almost like the people in power are kind of focusing on RFK.
And you have to ask why.
Why are all these influential people focusing on RFK?
Well, that's because they don't need to prop up Joe Biden.
In fact, the more they prop up Joe Biden, the less people like him.
They just have to hurt Trump.
And that's what the court cases are.
And that's what RFK is now.
So it makes perfect sense that RFK, even though he has this big celebrity support, no one, you know, no one's really donating to him.
He's not getting that traction as an independent.
So, of course, now that that's happening, I wouldn't be surprised to see him become a libertarian, because at the end of the day, the people in power are doing everything they can to take away as many votes as they can from former President Trump.
And in this election, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the avenue for them to do that is through RFK and an independent candidacy.
And if they can't get him on the ballot with just him, they'll put him on the libertarian ticket and hurt Trump in that way.
That's what it looks like to me.
But I'm interested to hear your take on this, too, Roger, because you see the shifting, the political stuff.
And and maybe you could talk about for a second in the 90s.
Well, look, I go by the polling.
This is not supposition and it's not a guess.
So if you look at all of the polling, both private and public, it demonstrates that a Robert Kennedy candidacy pulls a disproportionate number of votes from Donald Trump.
At the same time, Mr. Kennedy seems to me to have No actual prospect to be elected president.
He continues to talk endlessly about the fact that he has a higher favorable rating than either Joe Biden or Donald Trump among younger voters.
And while that's true, he's still not getting a plurality of the vote among younger voters, which is not the same thing.
Now, he talks about border policy.
He talks about the war in Ukraine.
He talks about health freedom.
He rarely talks about his position on abortion or the fact that he wanted to lock up anybody who disagreed with his climate change agenda.
So perhaps, and the fact that mainstream media has largely banned him, and therefore he's been relegated to doing the podcast circuit where he talks to issues that specifically appeal to Trump voters.
But, uh, in the end, the choice here is going to be between Donald Trump and a Democrat.
I still don't believe that Democrat will be Joe Biden.
Some of the videos you sent me over the weekend, uh, just made me laugh out loud.
This guy is, he's noncompetent.
He barely makes sense.
Uh, and therefore I, I repeat, uh, the scenario that I see playing out, which is, I've changed my mind over time as things have developed, but I think they have cleared the path for Joe Biden to win enough delegates to be re-nominated.
They really have made it extraordinarily difficult to challenge him within that process, and nobody will.
At a certain juncture, He will roll up enough votes to be the nominee.
But then I believe just prior to the convention, he will announce that for reasons of health, which are totally plausible, that while he's not resigning, he's not up to the rigors of another campaign.
At that point, he will legally release his delegates to let the convention work its will, and that convention will then draft the most popular woman Democrat in the country.
That would be Michelle Obama.
She is one of the most respected women in the country.
She has no political track record to attack, per se.
She is, without any question, They're potentially strongest candidate.
Now, the question is what to do about Vice President Kamala Harris, who, as you might understand, believes that, well, she's next in line, which under a normal political scenario, if a sitting president elected not to run, then the sitting vice president would traditionally be next up for that position.
The problem with that, of course, is that Democrats have no greater confidence in her ability to win than they do have confidence in Obama's ability, pardon me, Joe Biden's ability to win.
Now, what's interesting is a new book that was out last week, which I have ordered but not received.
I've only read some of the outtakes, which say that Biden didn't want Kamala Harris to begin with, that he was angry at her for exposing him in one of the Bates as the racist that he is.
It is absolutely accurate that he ran for the Senate in 1972 as an opponent to the integration of the Wilmington-Delaware school system.
He says specifically if the Wilmington schools were desegregated, it would be a racial jungle, and I do not want my daughter going to school in a jungle.
If that isn't the dog whistle, I don't know what is.
He is also the progenitor of the 1994 Crime Bill, which shifts the war on crime away from drug dealers and drug kingpins and drug cartels to the end user imposing the harsh mandatory penalties for the first time nonviolent crime of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use.
A law which I think has unfairly and wrongly mass-incarcerated hundreds of thousands, if not millions now, of young black men or poor people or people of color.
It's a legitimate criticism.
And therefore, now we're told that Joe wants to dump Kamala Harris and replace her with Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan.
Have you seen any of this stuff, Troy?
I have, Roger, and I think that there's one problem with Kamala Harris as far as the Democrat complex is concerned.
She's a little too egotistical.
And it's about, you know, she, you know, she, she ran a campaign ad.
If people haven't seen this, she ran a campaign ad for, I believe she was running for president on how to pronounce her name.
That's how egotistical this woman is.
Her campaign advertisement was talking down to people and talking about, Hey, this is how you say my name.
And she had small children saying it, that, that Kamala is, you know, basically a God.
That's basically how they, they, they worded it.
And I just, I had a question for you, Roger, because, you know, I was looking at the FEC filings and, and Biden in 2023 has raised some $150 million just between the Biden victory fund and his presidential actually official campaign.
Um, in In the situation that he does leave, what happens to that money?
Does he just transfer that over to somebody else or how does that work exactly?
I believe that it would be legally transferable, believe it or not, until the late 1970s.
Under the law, if a federal candidate raised money for their principal campaign fund and they did not use it, they could actually pocket it, take it personally, pay taxes on it, on their way out the door.
Wow.
But that was reformed some time ago.
Now, I think it depends on whether the money is in a principal campaign vehicle or whether it's in a super PAC.
If it's in a super PAC, that super PAC merely just needs to amend.
Its purpose is to make it to the benefit of a different candidate, presumably whoever replaces Joe Biden.
I'm uncertain whether there's a limitation on committee to committee transfer.
There used to be.
I don't know if there is today, but it's important to note here, Roger, that there is $89 million in the Biden victory fund, which I do believe is a PAC.
And there's only $44 million in his personal Biden for president.
So if that is the case, then a majority of the money that's been given to Biden over the last year has been put into a PAC, which would make it easily transferable.
I think the Victory Fund, though, is a joint project of the National Committee and the Biden campaign.
It was just simply they'd amend their filing to make it a Joint project of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic candidate, whoever that person may be.
Again, I'm not a federal election lawyer, and it would be wise to consult one.
Meanwhile, Nikki Haley continues, despite the fact that she's going to take a drubbing in Nevada this week and is now running close to 30 points behind In the latest polls in her home state of South Carolina, she seems intent to drive the country to World War III.
Today, advocating strikes, airstrikes on Iran.
Do we have that video?
For it to get bad before they do something about it.
Where did this all start?
None of this would have started had Biden not lifted the sanctions on Iran.
You allowed millions, billions of dollars to go in from China, importing their oil.
And what did that do?
That gave money to the proxies to get these missiles, to do these things, to do the training, to invade Israel.
All of that happened because they got money.
And Biden still to this second hasn't increased sanctions on Iran.
That's lunacy.
Because you're just continuing to pay them for trying to now kill our soldiers.
There are things we can do that are not war.
But not having common sense?
There's no excuse for that.
And this is something where we've seen him do it with Iran, we saw him do it with Afghanistan, we're seeing him do it with Russia and Ukraine.
You have to be tough.
That doesn't mean starting a war, that actually means preventing war.
But when countries see that you're tough and you're serious, they back off.
By nature they back off.
Iran knows they can't beat America.
They've always known that.
But as long as they smell blood in the water, they're going to keep doing this.
Governor Haley, I want to thank you for coming by today.
Thanks so much.
Go to NikkiHaley.com.
We're going to finish this.
Absolutely amazing.
All right.
I think we are pretty much, therefore, out of time.
I want to thank my good friend, Troy Smith, the editor-at-large at Rare.us for joining me in today's show.
I'm Roger Stone.
This has been the Stone Zone until tomorrow.
God bless you and Godspeed.
▲
Export Selection