All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 12, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
53:02
Ronna OUT at RNC! House Republicans Fall Short - The StoneZONE w/ Roger Stone
| 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 yes, you are back in the Stone Zone.
As usual, for the next hour, we're going to break down the latest developments in American politics.
And joining me is my co-host, Troy Smith, the editor-at-large at Rare.us.
Troy, welcome back in to the Stone Zone.
Roger, it's a big day for journalists around the world.
We had major news break last night that I think we were ahead of on Rare and definitely talked about here on The Stone Zone with Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin.
Of course, that's dominating the headlines.
Want to get right into that this morning because that is everywhere and people are going as far, Roger, as to say that Carlson needs to be banned from re-entering the U.S.
I saw you had a Twitter spat with Bill Kristol over this.
I would love for you to get into that kind of first thing here because it's just really unbelievable.
Yeah, I don't understand what, I mean, Tucker Carlson is guilty of the crime of journalism.
I mean, nobody objected when Barbara Walters went and interviewed Fidel Castro, a true murderer.
Nobody objected when Mike Wallace interviewed Vladimir Putin.
Nobody objected when Oliver Stone interviewed Vladimir Putin.
So it's only when somebody who's perceived as being on the right And Tucker Carlson would make no bones about being an opinion journalist.
He represents a certain point of view.
But what is it about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine they don't want us to know?
What is it in Putin's, from Putin's point of view, that people don't want to talk about?
There have certainly been more than enough fawning interviews with President Zelensky.
We know his argument.
I'm very anxious to hear what Putin has to say.
Now, anybody who interviews Putin is immediately accused of being a Putin bootlicker, a stooge for the Russians.
As someone who's had members of my own family mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956, I recognize that Vladimir Putin is indeed an authoritarian killer.
He's a dictator, kind of exactly like, oh, I don't know, President Zelensky, who has outlawed all political parties other than his, who has arrested everybody who ran against him in the last election.
Who has forestalled a new election.
That's not very democratic.
Who has shut down the largest church in the country.
Who has arrested journalists, shut down radio stations, shut down newspapers, shut down television stations.
So those who try to tell us that this dispute, this war between Russia and Ukraine is about democracy.
Not about democracy at all.
It seems to me really pathetic that Tucker Carlson has to defend himself for doing this interview, but let's roll this tape and see what he had to say.
We're in Moscow tonight.
We're here to interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.
We'll be doing that soon.
There are risks to conducting an interview like this, obviously, so we've thought about it carefully over many months.
Here's why we're doing it.
First, because it's our job.
We're in journalism.
Our duty is to inform people.
Two years into a war that's reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed.
They have no real idea what's happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine.
But they should know.
They're paying for much of it, in ways they might not fully yet perceive.
The war in Ukraine is a human disaster.
It's left hundreds of thousands of people dead, an entire generation of young Ukrainians, and it's depopulated the largest country in Europe.
But the long-term effects are even more profound.
This war has utterly reshaped the global military and trade alliances.
And the sanctions that followed have as well.
And in total, they have upended the world economy.
The post-World War II economic order, the system that guaranteed prosperity in the West for more than 80 years, is coming apart very fast, and along with it, the dominance of the U.S.
dollar.
These are not small changes.
They are history-altering developments.
They will define the lives of our grandchildren.
Most of the world understands this perfectly well.
They can see it.
Ask anyone in Asia or the Middle East what the future looks like.
And yet the populations of the English-speaking countries seem mostly unaware.
They think that as nothing has really changed.
And they think that because no one has told them the truth.
Their media outlets are corrupt.
They lie to their readers and viewers.
And they do that mostly by omission.
For example, since the day the war in Ukraine began, American media outlets have spoken to scores of people from Ukraine, and they have done scores of interviews with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky, and we hope he accepts.
But the interviews he's already done in the United States are not traditional interviews.
They are fawning pep sessions specifically designed to amplify Zelensky's demand that the U.S.
enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it.
That is not journalism.
It is government propaganda.
Propaganda of the ugliest kind.
The kind that kills people.
At the same time our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he's a new consumer brand, not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.
Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now.
They've never heard his voice.
That's wrong.
Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they're implicated in.
And we have the right to tell them about it, because we are Americans, too.
Freedom of speech is our birthright.
We were born with the right to say what we believe.
That right cannot be taken away, no matter who is in the White House.
But they're trying anyway.
Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media.
They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning.
Last month, we pretty certainly did exactly the same thing once again.
But this time, we came to Moscow anyway.
We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin.
We are here because we love the United States.
And we want it to remain prosperous and free.
We paid for this trip ourselves.
We took no money from any government or group.
Nor are we charging people to see the interview.
It is not behind a paywall.
Anyone can watch the entire thing, shot live to tape and unedited, on our website, TuckerCarlson.com.
Elon Musk, to his great credit, has promised not to suppress or block this interview once we post it on his platform, X, and we're grateful for that.
Western governments, by contrast, will certainly do their best to censor this video on other, less principled platforms, because that's what they do.
They are afraid of information they can't control.
But you have no reason to be afraid of it.
We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview.
But we are urging you to watch it.
You should know as much as you can.
And then, like a free citizen and not a slave, you can decide for yourself.
Thanks.
A great, I think, statement.
Some in the EU are arguing that Tucker Carlson should be banned from all European countries.
This is Really beginning to be laughable.
Oh, Roger, and I think it's important to point out here.
It's like, why are they so scared of an open form, unedited interview with Vladimir Putin?
I think it reveals what they want to do.
And, you know, we were talking about this this morning with an article people can check out on rare.us about the Kennedy assassination.
And within that, we talk about, you know, your event in Tulsa, which we're going to get to more in depth.
But in your speech you talk about the fact that our intelligence agencies viewed Kennedy as soft on Russia because they wanted to use Cuba in order to provoke a war with the Soviet Union.
Is that not exactly what's going on here?
Do we not have intelligence agencies working?
to prevent Tucker Carlson from interviewing Vladimir Putin so that they can stoke a war with Russia?
I mean, it's really unbelievable to see the historical parallels.
And we're talking about something that happened, I don't know, 60, 70 years between each other.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
Well, what's really extraordinary about this, Troy, is the fact that Carlson admitted, or I should say announced, that when he was talking a year ago about the potential of interviewing Putin, the government was basically surveilling his communications.
Did they have a warrant for that?
On what basis?
What crime would they be investigating?
His interview of Putin is most certainly not a crime, so again, I guess it shows who is Who is a danger to democracy?
I'd say those who surveilled journalists, which is almost unheard of.
I mean, until Obama got caught red-handed essentially surveilling James Rosen of Fox back in the White House days, This is, you know, this is considered verboten.
The government's not supposed to be illegally, warrantlessly surveilling private citizens without a purpose, without a warrant.
But there's no treason here.
He's a journalist.
I'm really glad he went.
I'm anxious, in all honesty, to see this interview.
I've read snippets of it.
I don't know whether, for example, Putin talks about the bioweapons labs that he claims that the U.S.
has funded in Ukraine.
I don't know if he talks about the missiles, the NATO missiles, the silos for which I believe have already been built based on the reporting of Max Blumenthal.
I mean, I'm very anxious to see this interview.
I'm not going to prejudge it, but I'm anxious to see it.
I am too, Roger, and it's such an obstructed view of world events, and I think it's important for people to understand that that is for a reason.
Because if we're in the dark, the Washington Post slogan, democracy dies in darkness, if we are in the dark about, really, world events, And all these news outlets that claim to be telling us the truth, giving us the information so that we can make our own decisions, they're not doing that.
They're crafting an agenda of the people who are in the intelligence agencies that have been doing this kind of thing for a very long time.
And I think the evidence kind of spells that out.
But kind of overshadowing, the Tucker Carlson thing really has overshadowed what happened last night, Roger.
I was doing the live coverage on Rare and we were talking about the Nevada primaries and that's something that I know I'm eager to get your thoughts on because Nikki Haley, and I think we might even have a graphic of this, we might not, Nikki Haley actually lost to nobody.
Last night in the Nevada primaries more voters and we're talking about a margin of 43,893 people to 21,000 that voted for her.
Almost double the amount of people voted for no candidate in the Nevada primary last night.
Joe Biden took I think about 89% of the vote which was Under achieving, I think.
I think you look at the turnout.
It looked like Biden didn't get the turnout that he was expecting.
He had done a campaign event there with a speech where he was just completely lost.
So, interesting to see.
What do you think about Nikki Haley losing to nobody last night?
That was pretty interesting, huh?
Yeah, so let's explain the process so people understand it.
Nevada has a non-binding presidential preference primary.
That was yesterday.
It is generally called a beauty contest.
Donald Trump elected not to enter it because it doesn't have any involvement or control of the delegates.
Now Thursday, which I guess is tomorrow, you will have the Nevada caucuses.
This is where voters turn out to choose the delegates.
So, for some strange reason, Nikki Haley chose to compete in the primary.
Trump did not, but the ballot included not only Nikki Haley, but also none of the above, as you correctly say.
And Haley is not competing in the caucuses on Tuesday.
You know, perennial candidate named Binkley is now.
You need to get more.
You can get delegates if you get 4% of the vote.
Binkley could end up with a delegate or two, but I think Donald Trump is poised not only for a smashing victory, but I think turnout is going to be substantial.
Whereas, as you point out, Nikki Haley got humiliated yesterday.
Twice as many people voted for no candidate at all over her.
Now, we have to presume that many of those people were Trump supporters.
By the way, if you vote in the primary, you can also vote in the caucus.
So, this is an embarrassment for her going into the South Carolina primary.
Now, you recall, on primary night in New Hampshire.
She specifically said she had to perform better in her home state than she performed in New Hampshire.
She was at about 43% in the finals in New Hampshire.
The latest polls I've heard about 34% in her home state.
Trump is taking nothing for granted.
He's headed to South Carolina this weekend.
I believe he has 10 separate events between now and the primary, which shows that he's taking nothing for granted.
But will she drop out after losing South Carolina?
I kind of doubt it.
Because she's not running for the nomination to win.
She's running for the nomination in order to damage Donald Trump as an instrument for Joe Biden.
The Biden campaign yesterday said that they were delighted that she's announced that she will continue.
I think it's kind of obvious what's going on here.
For those who have a concern that she's staying in the race to be selected for vice president, I must tell you, I think there is zero chance that we're going to see a Trump-Haley ticket.
Zero chance.
To the extent that that was out there in the ether, I think Ron DeSantis, before his departure from the race, was pushing that idea as some kind of wedge against Trump.
But there's just nothing to it.
Well, and I think it's important for people to point out that this is millions of dollars being put into this for something that awarded no delegates.
And you have to ask yourself, why would you do that if you were trying to win the nomination?
And I think it points out exactly what you're talking about, Raj.
You know, you mentioned real quickly Ron DeSantis.
And there was a lot of people talking about DeSantis.
And I've noticed this.
Since he's kind of died down, he's dropped out of the race.
They're covering him on Fox News.
They're showing his speeches.
He's he's and he's really inserting himself into these national issues where you've pointed out and many people have we have insurance crisis here in Florida in many different ways.
I mean the average car insurance for people who don't know is over $300 in the state of Florida in places like my old home state of Maryland.
It's it's it's less than 200.
So you're talking about It's more expensive to drive, it's more expensive to own homes in Florida than anywhere else, and that's largely due to the insurance crisis that we have here.
And DeSantis is worried about stuff on a national level, and I understand that stuff is important, but as an outsider, casual observer, kind of looks like he's trying to insert himself into this.
And I heard rumblings of a shadow campaign.
What do you mean for, what do you think about this shadow campaign that DeSantis is running for president?
Because it seems like he's putting himself on the spotlight and it's almost like that old strategy that he had of kind of laying around in the grass like a snake waiting for Trump to have something land against him legally, that he's going to try to put himself back into this race.
Do you see that going on at all?
What are your thoughts?
Yeah, I think you've hit it right on the head.
So he's basically, first of all, he's trying to rehabilitate his image.
Suddenly he's talking about all these federal issues, term limits, a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.
Frankly, he needs to focus on the problems right here in Florida.
The insurance crisis is far worse than you described.
Many, many home insurers have withdrawn from the market.
Citizens Insurance Company, which is essentially the state-owned insurance company, is in fact insolvent.
Insurance costs for homes or for cars or for boats or for anything are zoaring if you can find somebody who will insure you.
At the same time, Governor DeSantis signed a tort reform bill that basically says if your home was destroyed in the hurricane, just destroyed, and you don't like the offer of your insurance company who's offering you pennies on the dollar, If you can't possibly rebuild or replace your home for what the insurance company is willing to give you, you've lost the ability to sue them.
They're unsuable based on the tort reform bill that the governor signed.
They return for enormous contributions from the insurance industry.
We also have a utility rate crisis in the states.
We've just had a 22 on average increase in electricity rates.
It's the largest single increase in electricity rates in Florida history.
This is approved by the regulators who were appointed by Ron DeSantis.
Does it have any connection to the nine and a half million dollars that Governor DeSantis took from Florida Power and Light and its various subsidiaries?
I'd say it probably does.
But in a state with a lot of senior citizens on fixed incomes, it is absolutely a blockbuster to them.
Now, clearly the governor's strategy of rehabilitation is obvious.
You see this Florida voice by this fellow Brendan Leslie.
This guy's interesting.
About a year ago, he threatened online that he would end any political—guaranteed me, That I would have no political influence in the state of Florida.
How did that work out?
He is the head cheerleader for the shadow campaign of Ron DeSantis.
What's DeSantis doing?
One, he's very bitter that he ran a $200 million dumpster fire of a campaign.
He never really endorsed Trump.
What he said was, it's obvious that most Republicans want Trump.
That's not the same as, I support Trump.
Uh, and he's already plotting a 2028 strategy.
That's why he's suddenly so visible.
And he and his wife went out and they adopted a dog from a dog shelter.
This is nice.
I'm a dog lover, but that's an attempt to humanize him because he has no human qualities.
He's a cold fish.
I don't think Trump supporters will ever trust him again.
He's already proven that he's a backstabbing weasel.
But right now, kind of similar, in a way similar to Nikki Haley, but also not, look, he's hoping Donald Trump gets hit by a bus.
He's hoping that there's some legal case that somehow prevents Trump from running, and he thinks the party would turn to him if that happened.
It's a treacherous strategy, but I think that's exactly what he's doing.
Alright, and like you pointed out there, he's kind of waiting, and I think I said it too, he's waiting in the grass for these legal cases to end, and last night I was watching the Nevada primary, trying to find coverage, and I tuned to Fox and it wasn't primary coverage, and I tuned to CNN and it wasn't primary coverage, I tuned to MSNBC, not primary coverage, but on all of the liberal outlets
and this was like without exception, all of them were talking about the ruling against Trump that occurred, I believe yesterday, where they're claiming now that Trump had no immunity or has no immunity as a president and that he can be kind of, it's opening the door, they're saying, for these where they're claiming now that Trump had no immunity or has no immunity as a president And we're talking about the wide range of things that they're trying to attack him with.
So, I'd just like to get your thoughts on that.
Where does this case really stand right now?
What do they mean by Trump doesn't have immunity?
What does that really even mean?
Alright, so people understand this.
Trump's lawyers argued that as President of the United States, he has immunity for his official acts as President.
He can't be sued over them.
Uh, Jack Smith wanted to leapfrog—let me back up—Trump presented that to Judge Chuckton in D.C.
She rejected that argument.
Trump announced that he would appeal to the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
Jack Smith wanted to fast-track that and therefore wanted to leapfrog the Court of Appeals and take it directly to the U.S.
Supreme Court, where it's going to end up anyway.
The Supreme Court said they would not hear it yet, that it needed to go to the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
It went.
The D.C.
Court of Appeals is a liberal, extremely politicized court.
Their decision is not even remotely surprising.
This is what was expected.
They ruled that Trump does not have immunity.
Now, in all honesty, I don't think Trump's attorney, Mr. Sauer, handled this terribly well.
A minute and 58 seconds into his presentation to the appeals court, the judge asked him a hypothetical question, which was, if Trump ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, and then to assassinate any senator who wanted to impeach him over it, would he have immunity in that matter?
And Trump's lawyer said, my answer is a qualified yes.
No, that's not the correct answer.
The correct answer is he would only have immunity for those actions that he legitimately formed as president.
The hypothetical described by the judge, which is probably written by, who knows, Andrew Weissman or one of the outside lawyers who were convincing in this case, you don't answer hypothetical questions if you're a trial attorney.
So I think that answer was not only incorrect, but I think it has colored the coverage of this issue.
Now what will happen is that we'll go to the U.S.
Supreme Court and they will make a ruling on whether or not the president has immunity.
Trump has pointed this out several times and nobody seems to want to understand it, but This opens the door.
If the president has no immunity, I can think of numerous acts, for example, the use of drones on American citizens, that Barack Obama would most immediately be liable for.
It's why all presidents have to have legal immunity for their official acts.
This could very well come back to bite not only Barack Obama, but Joe Biden.
Now, some are going to argue that Trump's actions were outside his authority or his responsibilities as commander in chief.
I think his lawyers are going to make a different argument.
We'll see what the Supreme Court says.
I guess I'm not optimistic of a correct ruling, but I'm also not a lawyer.
21 states joined with the state of Texas wanting to question certain aspects of the 2020 election, and it shocks me that the court refused to hear that.
Normally, when three states ask for something, the Supreme Court tends to listen to the states.
20 states, I think it may have been 21, asked for a review of mail-in ballots and so on, the court wouldn't hear that.
So, this is not unexpected.
Again, we talked about this, I think, yesterday.
A lot of this has to do with timeline.
In other words, the left was upset that Jack Smith, the special counsel, could not leapfrog the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court because they desperately want this trial, this D.C.
trial, to take place before the election.
That's because it's election interference.
They want to They want to drain Trump's money, they want to drain Trump's time from the campaign trail, and obviously they want to use the courtroom proceedings to vilify him.
That's why they also gagged him.
I've been in this exact situation.
It's not like the E. Jean Carroll case or the business records case that Alvin Bragg has brought where Trump can step out in the hallway and offer a spirited defense of himself or the an evaluation case for that matter, in the criminal case in D.C., and presumably, I'm guessing in the Florida case, he's going to be gagged.
He's not going to be able to present a public defense, and it's going to be very, very different than it has been in these civil cases.
In the meantime, I hope E. Jean Carroll just keeps giving interviews, because the more she talks, the more she hurts public conclusions about that case.
I mean, Rachel Maddow should have her back again.
It was embarrassing when she said, Rachel, I'm going to buy you an apartment.
I'm going to buy you a condo.
And of course, Eugene Carroll's lawyer said, well, she's only kidding.
Well, is she really kidding?
Who knows?
Well, and that really is, because they've put this picture out there of this object, this false objectivity that E. Jean Carroll is this person who was, you know, brutally raped, and they've really, they use rape, and then we played the clip on here, Roger, of her saying that rape is sexy to Anderson Cooper, and even Anderson Cooper, who, I mean, has probably seen some really crazy stuff over the years, is like, this woman's insane, let's cut to a break.
Let's get out of here.
I mean, it's really unbelievable and I think, you know, I just wanted to point out with the Trump immunity thing, if we do get a ruling here that says that the president is not immune, I would hope that every American that came here from Iraq after the Bush debacle sues George W. Bush.
I hope that the 13 US Marines, including, or I should say, the 16 service members that have been killed under Joe Biden's watch, whether that be in Afghanistan or Jordan, will sue the Biden administration and sue Joe Biden personally for what happened.
Anything from mass shootings, if anybody in politics can be sued for something, like a president can be sued for a policy that they implement, that's going to open the door to things we can't even imagine anymore.
And if you want to know what's going to happen, eventually they'll just start doing things.
And that's an important point here, Roger.
Do you think for a second That this would have started if it was the Bush situation or the Biden situation.
This is a political witch hunt.
They are setting up one person for things that didn't happen when there's mountains of evidence that kind of goes along with what they're saying against everybody that has been on their side from the beginning.
The Uniparty, the Bushes, the Obamas, the Clintons, these people.
They have been doing worse things than Trump for 28, 30 years.
And now that Trump has stood up to them, they want to come after him politically.
And I think the American people really see through that.
It's not so much that there's people like us out there.
I think there's just an understanding amongst the American people that, hey, this is unbelievably wrong.
And that's why his numbers keep going up.
His poll numbers keep going up and up.
I saw in a poll last night, he's winning the Hispanic vote nationally.
I mean, he's up on Biden.
That was unheard of.
We're talking eight years ago.
That was absolutely unheard of.
He's winning the Hispanic vote for the Republican Party, something that, you know, they've been talking about and haven't been able to achieve For maybe even your whole life, Roger.
So it's pretty amazing that that's where we're at.
And I saw actions, I think we might have a video of this.
There's a House resolution now that has kind of been put out there in response to some of the legal attacks.
And that is claiming that Trump did not commit insurrection on January 6th.
And I believe this was, Stefanik was involved in this, and it's very important.
I think we had the clip, but I'd like to get your thoughts on that as well, Roger.
Let's see, do we have a video on that?
But we are here today to authoritatively express that President Trump did not commit an insurrection and we believe Congress has a unique role in making that declaration.
It's not the job of the states and especially not the job of some bureaucrats in Colorado to make this assessment and interfere with the rights of voters to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice.
The very experts who often get on television and talk about securing democracy seem to be the first to want to then remove a candidate from the ballot because they are afraid that he is too popular.
We have 63 co-sponsors to the resolution that Ms. Stefanik and I will be filing today to express the sense of Congress that President Trump did not commit an insurrection.
I want to express my gratitude to Senator Vance for filing the companion legislation over in the Senate.
And now it's time for members of the House and Senate to show where they stand on this question.
We and the former president welcome and expect many more co-sponsors in the coming days and look forward to a floor vote.
And now I'd like to recognize my co-lead on this project, our terrific Republican conference chair, Elise Stefanik.
So I believe that Congressman Matt Gaetz, Congressman Elise Stefanik, and others sponsored a sense of the House resolution that said that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection on January 6th.
That's very nice.
It doesn't have the weight of law.
What I don't understand is there is a formal structure within the House of Representatives called BLAG, which actually speaks It's made up of three members of the majority, two members of the minority.
Now, in, for example, the Colorado case, the majority controlled by Nancy Pelosi filed a brief against Trump in that case saying, essentially certifying that the report of the January 6th committee concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Kevin McCarthy and the minority filed an amicus brief disagreeing with that, but needless to say, the Colorado court took the word of the majority.
So I guess my message to Matt Gaetz and to Marjorie Greene and Ana Paulina Luna and the other pro-Trump members of the House is, this is very simple.
Speaker Johnson needs to re-convene this BLAG board.
and take a new vote and then file a new brief with the U.S. Supreme Court that is now sitting on the Colorado decision.
He's agreed to hear the Colorado decision.
That would be far more effective than this public relations stunt that doesn't have the rule of law or the weight of law of the House declaring that Trump did not engage in insurrection.
They would actually formally decertify the conclusions of the January 6th Committee, which we now know was an epic fraud, was a kabuki TV show, which featured perjurous testimony, which ignored ... I don't remember Ray Epps' public testimony, do you?
No.
Outright perjury in various statements as well as the use of manipulated videos and so on.
This was a fraud.
I think the House leadership has concluded that, but why Speaker Johnson doesn't reconvene this board for a vote, I'm kind of perplexed about that.
It sounds like all bark, no bite, Roger.
It sounds like this is something that can be used to say, hey, I support President Trump.
But in reality, there's actually a substantial thing that they could do that is legitimate and legal, and they're not doing it.
And I don't know if that's a process thing or it's a You know, and I noticed this too, Roger, watching Hakeem Jeffries this morning and watching some of the people.
There's a accusation that's going out there, and it's echoed by the mainstream media, especially those on MSNBC, that President Trump is calling the shots in the House.
And, you know, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that too, because I would believe that if President Trump was calling the shots in the House, he would have done what you've said.
You know what I mean?
I mean, as far as This has to do with what we spoke about yesterday, trying to redefine what's going on at the border.
Let's be very clear.
The open border is caused by the policies of Joe Biden.
Joe Biden does not need a new law, nor does he need any more money to seal the border.
The border is sealable today.
Donald Trump proved that.
When Republicans refused to agree to a plan that would allow 1.8 million new illegal migrants in the country per year, at the same time passing $20 billion, not for border enforcement, but basically the money to process those illegals into the country, and tag on, I think it was $62 million,
For Ukraine, in the losing war effort, because Colonel McGregor, General Flynn, everybody who I respect in the military, who sees through the war propaganda, tells me it's not going well for Ukraine, as well as a substantial appropriation for Israel.
At the grassroots of the Republican Party, these are not popular ideas.
So, no, it's not Donald Trump's fault that our border is open.
It's Joe Biden's fault that it's open.
Biden, as you know, flipped his rhetoric entirely roughly two weeks ago.
His Secretary of Homeland Security insisted the border was secure.
So did his spokeswoman, Jean Pierre, whatever her name is.
Now suddenly Biden says, no, no, the border's not secure.
I've always said that.
But the Republicans won't give me the tools I need to fix it.
Yes, Mr. President, you have the tools today.
To say that Trump was against this package because he wants to run on the open border.
No, Trump was against this package because this package will not solve the problem, will not seal the border.
Now, I know that the New Republic's not going to agree with that analysis, but that is the stone cold truth.
Well, and Roger, it's important to put, you know, it kind of segues into our next topic here, which I think is important.
We've been talking, they've been talking an awful lot about the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas as DHS Secretary.
And, you know, personally, I look at this and say, OK, you know, I understand Mayorkas is bad.
I understand, you know, this guy has kind of overseen a lot of issues and I understand why you bring an impeachment vote against him.
But to me, If you take out Mayorkas, it doesn't seem to me that that would change anything.
In fact, you would just get another Biden replacement.
To me, this is an issue of a top-down.
This is the top, Joe Biden, controlling his administration and making sure that there is lawless chaos at the southern border.
What do you make of the impeachment effort, and do you think that would really fix anything?
Well, first of all, I'm certainly no fan of Mr. Mayorkas or his policies.
He's insisted the border is secure when we can see with our own eyes that it's not.
No, this is not a false narrative created by Fox News.
There are multiple media outlets showing what's going on, and the numbers are very real.
On the other hand, and again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not stupid, I don't think you have the grounds to remove Mayorkas.
Remove somebody for the purposes that they were incompetent or that the policies they follow were wrong.
I think you can only impeach people for essentially high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don't think Mayorkas, as much as I don't like him and I don't like his positions, I don't think he committed an impeachable offense.
But even if he did, you would not move a motion to impeach him if you didn't have the votes.
Is there nobody here counting votes?
Isn't that the Speaker's job?
So the House Republicans, I have many friends there, I think they look foolish today.
I would not have put forward this motion.
It achieved nothing.
Actually, it achieved giving the Democrats a victory.
Mayorkas is a disgrace.
But he'll go when Joe Biden loses the election.
Donald Trump appoints a new head of Homeland Security who will not be named Mayorkas.
Other than that, I think they made a pretty large error.
I would not even have taken this on.
I certainly would have taken it on politically if I didn't have the votes.
The four RINO Republicans were not going to go along.
You don't need a crystal ball to see that.
I can see it from here.
And it's really crazy too, Roger, because you don't necessarily even know the name of the four.
You just know that there are interests within the party that will make sure that this tanks.
And, you know, I think as we're looking at the situation with the Republican Party in general, I think, you know, we have some other news to talk about here, but I think there's a lot of issues structurally with the Republican Party because The people who are in charge and the people who are managing the money and trying to appeal to donors are very different than the people who are voting in the primaries.
And like we saw last night, the establishment donor class of both the Democrat Party and the GOP establishment love Nikki Haley.
She is the favorite topic of every cable news network show in the world, literally.
They talk about Nikki Haley every single day.
And yet last night, double the voters in Nevada voted for no candidate over Nikki Haley.
And it points out the people that are in charge of this party have no, they are no way connected to what the people that are voting actually care about.
And I think that's been really, It's been really exponentially getting worse under the control of Ronna McDaniel, Mitt Romney's niece.
And we just saw a breaking report last night that Ronna McDaniel apparently reportedly plans to resign from the RNC as the RNC chair.
That is bombshell news.
And I go back to this, Roger, when I look at the money that the RNC collected for the, quote, stop the steal.
Because we all, anybody who's on the Republican donors list, and I saw the emails people would send them to me, they were saying, hey, stop the steal, send us money.
And then after January 6th, the $200 million disappeared.
And all of these audits of the Arizona or Georgia have been paid for by the people, not by the RNC.
So I'm interested to hear your thoughts on Ronna McDaniel possibly going away, who you think might replace her and really going forward, how is the Republican Party going to kind of get back in touch with the voter base?
Well, first of all, this is a significant and an important decision.
It's not just symbolic.
That's because under federal law, only the Republican National Committee in a joint effort with the Republican nominee for president, can raise certain monies and perform certain functions.
Right now, the party's largest problem is that it can't raise money because donors, at all levels, have no confidence in Ronald McDaniels.
She just had a midterm election in which the party once again underperformed.
So she's a fundraising bust.
You need a chairperson who will instill confidence in Republican Party donors at all levels.
I mean, the $25 and $100 donors was the $25 and $1 million donor.
Secondarily, by tradition, the Republican candidate for president is allowed to name the leadership of the Republican National Committee.
It's a very interesting thing.
It's a very inside game.
And Ronald McDaniels has enormous contracts to give out.
There are a lot of consultants feeding on this.
I'm very curious about a company called WinRed.
WinRed Uh, not only provides payment processing for Republican candidates, but it also rents, uh, voter data, uh, to candidates to run for office.
Now, if one wants the support of the Republican National Committee or the Republican Congressional Committee or the Republican Senatorial Committee, well, then one has to use WinRed.
But who is Wynn Redd?
Who owns Wynn Redd?
This seems to me to be a conflict of interest.
It's very hard to get to the answer as to which of Ron and McDaniel's cronies own Wynn Redd.
Wynn Redd is making a huge amount of money because when the little old lady, you know, in Elton, Maryland, gives a $100 contribution, there's a processing fee through Wynn Redd that's pretty healthy.
I know many, many rank-and-file conservatives and Republicans who want to donate to candidates, but then when they go online to the website and they see that the website contributions are being processed by WinRed, they refuse to give.
They also, I think, have a legitimate concern about their data being resold.
So, look, I think That some major or middle-sized donor to the Republican National Committee needs to bring a lawsuit for a full and complete forensic audit of the RNC spending, both hard money and soft money, both federal money and so-called dark money, to see who's getting rich off of the Republican National Committee.
I wouldn't want to make a sizable contribution if I were a large donor, which I'm not, but I wouldn't want to make a large donation until I knew that.
I think the president has lost confidence in Ronald Romney.
That was very clear in his interview with Maria Bartiromo.
There are reports in the New York Times that the next chairman may be a fellow named Watley from North Carolina.
I'm unfamiliar with him, therefore I don't want to comment on him.
It's also an unconfirmed report that he's the president's choice.
We don't know that to be a fact.
I've heard other names.
The good news is she's stepping down, and I think that's excellent news indeed.
Well, and I think, you know, it signals a change here going forward, Roger, that the people in the establishment, they really are having to get out of the way, and the Trump thing is becoming inevitable.
And it always really was inevitable, but it's sinking in now for the establishment types.
And it's going to be seriously interesting to see how this thing shakes out, because I think you have, like, DeSantis is kind of playing the same game as Nikki Haley, but he's kind of hiding in the shadows.
You know, there's a lot of people with their knives out kind of waiting for something to happen with Trump so they can jump in.
It really reminds me a lot of writing that article this morning that people could check out on rare.us about the Kennedy assassination.
I want to get into that real quickly, Roger, because you had an event in Tulsa over the last weekend and watching the Q&A you got into
So so many different topics and so many different ins and outs of the Kennedy assassination just kind of broadly I'd like you to kind of compare and contrast the situations of John F Kennedy and President Trump and The similarities that you see because I know that you know the JFK situation what led to that in such detail probably more than just about anybody What are the similarities you see between the two men and and and why do you think they they share this beloved?
This beloved status with the public.
Well, thank you for that setup.
I want to tell Seth for a two-hour discussion of my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
This is a New York Times bestselling book that I wrote in 2013.
Folks who want to get an autographed copy of this book can go to themanwhokilledkennedy.com, themanthatkilledkennedy.com.
This is a page-turner.
It's written like a murder mystery.
I think it is extremely compelling.
I use eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics to make the case that John F. Kennedy was the victim of a plot that included not only the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Secret Service, organized crime, and the financial interests on Wall Street, the banking interests as well as
big Texas oil, but the one thing they had all in common was their connection to Lyndon Baines Johnson.
And I make the case in the book, and I made the case in Tulsa at this two-hour extravaganza that Johnson had the most immediate interest in the replacement of JFK because he was under investigation for corruption in two major scandals, and I made the case in Tulsa at this two-hour extravaganza that Johnson had the most immediate interest in the replacement of JFK because
Attorney General Robert Kennedy had already begun telling insiders in Washington that Johnson would be dropped from the ticket and was going to be criminally charged.
So, uh, it is Johnson who has the motive, means, and opportunity.
It's Johnson who therefore talks Kennedy into going to Dallas.
It is Johnson who dictates the motorcade route, uh, through downtown Dallas, even though, uh, JFK is going from the airport to the merchandise mart, neither which of whom is in the city of Dallas.
So why they looped inside the city and back out?
Well, I think we know why.
I had a great discussion, but the bottom line of this to regard your specific question is, I draw a direct line between the special interests Call them the military-industrial complex.
Call them the deep state.
Call them whatever you like.
But those who murdered John F. Kennedy, they're an unelected elite.
They are in our intelligence agencies.
They're in our military services.
They are in the think tanks.
They are in the defense contractors.
They're riddled throughout the institutions of Washington.
And they're the same people, frankly, who took Richard Nixon down in a bloodless coup in Watergate.
We now know from declassified documents the Central Intelligence Agency was well aware of the Watergate break-in before it happened, that they infiltrated the Watergate burglar team, the Watergate prosecutors, both Archibald Cox and His successor, Leon Jaworski, knew that, but it was never made public.
Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, wouldn't even allow the minority of the committee headed by Howard Baker to publish and produce a minority report that would have said that.
I draw a direct line from that to the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
I'm writing a book about that, as you know, because that doesn't add up.
John Hinckley Jr., accused of shooting Reagan, was crouching and always in front of him, but Reagan was hit from above and behind.
All four bullets shot by Hinckley are accounted for.
So, who actually shot Ronald Reagan and why?
I draw a line from that.
Since that failed, they attempt to remove Reagan in Iran-Contra, where people in the Reagan administration—Oliver North, George H. W. Bush, CIA Director Bill Casey—were clearly trading arms for hostages.
I don't think Reagan knew about it.
He survived that scandal.
These are the same institutions that gave us the phony Russian collusion hoax, which they keep recycling every day as if it hasn't been fully debunked.
It has.
And we're behind the two faux Russian, pardon me, Ukrainian impeachments.
So the book is very current in terms of what's going on, gives you a window into how things work then.
There's also now, as you know, a two-hour video.
Folks can go to Rumble.com slash Roger Stone, Rumble.com slash Roger Stone, and you'll not only be able to see this show, but you'll be able to see all of our shows.
We've just posted the entire two hours, so basically an hour speech, and then an hour of rigorous Q&A about the Kennedy assassination.
So, if this is something that interests you, and it's interesting to me because the American people are obsessed with this subject.
It's the most enduring murder mystery of the 20th century, and again, For those who say, well, the CIA did it, they're not wrong.
Or those who say the mob did it, they're not wrong either.
Or those who say it was big Texas oil.
Let's talk about who it wasn't.
It wasn't the Russians.
It wasn't Fidel Castro.
It wasn't the Cubans.
John F. Kennedy died as the result of a domestic conspiracy.
And I think I make that case overwhelmingly in the book.
So, I invite people to order their own copy, which again, you can get by going to TheManWhoKilledKennedy.com.
If this subject intrigues you, go to Rumble and watch the full two hours.
I had put up earlier just my remarks.
There were many, many requests for the Q&A.
That is now posted.
All right, Troy, looking at the clock, unfortunately, we appear to be out of town, out of time.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in to The Stone Zone today.
▲
Export Selection