All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
01:00:22
Update On RINO Plot To Bar Trump From Ballot + Crooked NY Judge's Daughter BUSTED — 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 back.
I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are back in the Stone Zone.
Well, we here at the Stone Zone and also at Slingshot.News, as well as StoneZone.com, Have exposed the nefarious and insidious plot to turn over control of the U.S.
House of Representatives to the Democrats through a series of resignations by Republican members of the House.
As my colleague Troy Smith has revealed, this effort is being quarterbacked by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a revenge play, and it is being substantially financed by vulture capitalist Paul Singer.
Troy Smith from Slingshot.News joins us now to give you a quick recap, and then we're going to bring in my friend Gary Franchi from the Next News Network, who's done even deeper research about who the next traders may be. Troy, welcome back to the Stone Zone. Roger, as always, it's an honor, and it was a delight to participate with you in the Spaces event last night with Vivek Ramaswamy and Scott Pressler and many others.
We were able to expose this story to millions of people who will eventually see that broadcast.
I think we had a couple thousand live viewers.
It was a hell of a broadcast and I think people need to check that out.
But the story that we ran in that Spaces that we talked about the most, Roger, was this plan in the house, as you stated.
Quarterbacked by Kevin McCarthy and financed by Paul Singer to remove Trump from the ballot, working in concert with the Democrats.
Now what people need to understand at home is that Ken Buck has left Congress.
That brings the Republican members of the House down to 218.
When Gallagher leaves on the 19th, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin 8, it will bring the Republican lead down to 217.
And as we're going to be talking about in this show, there's a lot of other members of Congress that also could potentially retire before the end of this term.
As we've talked about handing the House to the Democrats, Roger, and giving the Democrats and Hakeem Jeffries a chance to ban Trump from the presidential ballot.
Singer has donated to Kevin McCarthy to the extent of $2 million since 2019.
He's donated to Democrats using the United Democracy Project.
He gave a million dollars to that group this cycle.
And he's also put over a million dollars into advertising against Trump candidates across the country, whether that be Brandon Gill or several others in Alabama and North Carolina, Roger.
So not only is Singer forcing members of or financing former members of Congress that retired, he's also financing people who have announced they're not going to run for reelection.
He's also funding the campaigns of Murkowski and Collins, who endorsed Nikki Haley in the Senate.
And he is now funding Democrats.
So Stone's own Slingshot.News.
We have broke this story for the world.
And as we continue to see this thing gaining traction, gaining traction, it's beautiful to see so many people coming together for the truth.
It's beautiful to see so many people putting their stamp on this story and getting the word out.
Because it really is, I think, the story of this month and of this election.
That the Republicans are trying to cede control of the House to the Democrats so that they can ban President Trump from the ballot and take away the right of millions of people to vote.
Yeah, here's the absolute key point here, Troy, and that is for those out there saying, well, surely the courts will never allow this to happen.
Actually, in their Colorado ballot access decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court invited this action by Congress.
It essentially said the states cannot bar Trump from the ballot, but Congress could.
And Jamie Raskin, who's in a tight competition with Adam Schiff to be the most odious member of the House, immediately sponsored legislation to do exactly that.
So if Democrats get control of the House between now and November, even by one seat, they will immediately pass Raskin's legislation.
You could expect the Senate to pass it 51-49.
And the courts have pre-approved this.
It would be game over.
And I think that is the plan.
Joining us now is my friend Gary Franchi from the Next News Network.
He's done substantial research to try to determine who the next group of backstabbing rhinos might be.
Gary, welcome to the Stone Zone.
Roger, thanks for having me.
It's great to be here.
We really appreciate your coming in, particularly at late notice.
Well, you've done your own excellent reporting on what can only be described as a nefarious plot to seize control of the House before the November election.
Right now, I believe there are four vacancies, or there will soon be four vacancies, For reasons that no one can understand, Mike Gallagher has not resigned in such a way that a special election could be quickly held to fill his seat.
Therefore, his seat will remain open through November.
You've done a substantial amount of research on cross-referencing donors and other political connections to try to determine who the next Quizzlings may be.
Tell us about it.
Well, first of all, Roger, you guys broke this story and my producer sent it to me and I was really taken back by just how detailed it was.
And I said, what would cause someone to resign?
What would be factors in a resignation?
Now, you have the singer element, which you guys put right down.
I said, well, maybe age.
Maybe there's the length of time served.
And then, of course, the endorsements of Donald Trump, had they or had they not.
So I decided to just dig a little bit deeper.
Now, in my initial list that I did publish in my follow-up report, It was Ken Calvert, Joe Wilson, Mike Rogers, and Virginia Fox.
Now, I need to update that list now, because I said, you know, let's find out more.
Let's go a little bit deeper.
And I've expanded it to about 12 members of Congress.
And we've got it all sorted out in different categories.
So we've got, based on the time they've served, we have it based on their age.
And then what I think is the most significant factor here is If they have or have not endorsed Trump.
Now this information is all publicly available.
You can download the FEC reports.
You can get all of Paul Singer's donations.
You can find out obviously all the members of Congress and then you can find out who's been endorsed.
So this is really not like a secret method.
You just have to know where the information is and how to sort it.
So do you want to start with any specific list or where do you want to go?
Yeah, let's review your latest conclusions.
Your initial report regarding those four members, which you posted on X and we reposted, I think was on the money, but continue down the road here, Gary.
The floor is yours.
Well, I think we've got, if we take a look at who have not explicitly endorsed Trump, okay?
So, Calvert was on my initial list, but he has actually endorsed Trump.
Now, what's interesting about Calvert is he has received $5,800 from Singer, he's 71 years old, and he's served in Congress for 32 years!
I mean, when I started looking at the length of time that these people have served in Congress, I'm like, these people are there for a long, long time!
So, I think we can safely say Calvert, having endorsed Trump publicly, we can probably remove him from the list.
Based on the length of time served, we have Kay Granger.
She has served the longest.
She is 81 years old.
She has served for 28 years in Congress.
Now, she has served the longest.
She is 81 years old.
She has served for 28 years in Congress.
So being 81 and receiving $5,800 from Singer puts her right there at the top of the list.
Now, we can go down to Kathy McMorris-Rogers.
Now she's from Washington, from the 5th District.
Elected 2004.
Now she's 55 years old.
Okay.
And she's served for 20 years in Congress, which is still a significant number.
Now you think about, okay, when it goes, when that retirement process goes through their mind, okay.
55 years old.
Okay.
Not that old, but when you have 20 years in Congress behind you, they might say, you know, maybe it's time to hang it up.
I want to go spend time with my family, my kids and, and do some other political work.
So the, and I want to, you know, stick it to Donald Trump at the same time.
So this is this person, Kathy McMorris Rogers, Not endorsed Trump.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
Okay, we go and we look at Greg Pence.
Now, I'm skipping down to number eight on my list, but I think, obviously, with the bloodline and the feud between Pence and Trump, if, you know, Greg Pence, and he's from Indiana, The brother of Mike Pence, or related to Mike Pence, I didn't go further into the lineage there, but he's been in Congress for, it looks like, 20 years?
I believe?
And he's 68 years old and he's received at least, now, I have one list here at $5,800 and another at $8,700, so I gotta do a little bit more cross-checking, but regardless, Greg Pence is right there on the list, so he might be doing his brother or his—are they brothers?
They're brothers.
And I think in truth, Greg Pence is only in Congress through the endorsement of Donald J. Trump.
But clearly the blood there is now very bad, so having him on your list I think is a shrewd observation.
Continue.
Yeah, I think certainly.
All Mike has to do is pick up the phone and say, hey, uh, let's take, let's take out Donald Trump.
I want you to resign.
And oh, by the way, um, I got a call from, uh, Mr. Singer about this.
So anyway, uh, and then we can go down.
Let's, we'll, we'll, we'll skip back up to the top.
Um, number six, Blaine Lutgenmeier, first elected in 2008, 16 years in Congress, Age 64, received $5,800.
Okay, so he is up on the list as well.
And then we go down to Drew Ferguson, Republican from Georgia's 3rd District, first elected in 2016, eight years in Congress.
He's 58, also received $5,800 from Singer.
Skipping Pence, going down to number nine, we have young Kim, Republican, California, only four years in Congress.
62 years old, received $8,700 from Singer.
And then we have another Republican from California, Mike Garcia, elected in 2020.
Four years in Congress, 48 years old, Receive $5,800.
So that's really the list that I have come up with.
But of course, we can always look at the other factors here, such as, you know, just going right down, taking the Trump endorsement out of the equation.
You've got Calvert, Granger, Rogers, Fox, McMorris-Rogers, McHenry, Luchtenmeyer.
Now, Stefanik's on it.
I would I wouldn't put her in that same category, necessarily.
Drew Ferguson, Bacon Pence, and Waltz.
That's all based on the length of time served.
Gary, we're going to cut to a quick commercial break, and then we're going to come right back to you for a discussion.
And at the top, when we come back, Troy, it's your turn to ask Gary Frenchie a question.
Folks, please take a moment to hear a word from our sponsors.
The markets are getting crazy, and now is the time to protect yourself from economic turmoil.
Silver is in the headlines right now and creating lots of excitement as the price of silver is extremely attractive compared to gold.
A call to Swiss America gets you the scoop on whether the silver opportunity is for real.
What you'll discover will really blow your mind.
Today, silver faces a huge shortage due to the rising demand by military, solar, electric cars and computers, all of which depend on silver.
But right now, silver is priced to sell according to worldwide experts.
Now, to help you get started, Swiss America is offering beautiful United States Walking Liberty half dollars.
Issued by the U.S.
Mint from 1916 to 1947 and minted in 90% pure silver for a special introductory price.
Limit of 250 per customer while supplies last.
So call the number on your screen or visit SwissAmerica.com because now is the time to rediscover silver.
God put glutathione in every one of our cells.
We die without glutathione.
If someone took all the glutathione out of your neighbor's body, they would be dead in three to seven minutes.
We need it to sustain life, and we start losing it, Brannon, at age 20.
Our stores are just constantly being depleted.
The only thing, my friends, the only thing that will kill, detox, and destroy all of the free radicals, cytotoxins, mold, heavy metals, Pesticides, everything that I just mentioned, virus variants, vaccine variants, is God's molecule, glutathione.
It is a safe, natural detoxer.
It will detox every free radical, chemical, heavy metal from your brain, your liver, your organs, and your cells in seconds, every single day.
Dr. Lana checking in.
And check it out, houseone.numi.com. - Welcome back folks.
If you're just tuning in, this is the Stone Zone.
I'm here with my co-host, Troy Smith, and we're also joined by Gary Frenchy from the Next News Network, who's done substantial research trying to determine whether or not there are rhinos in the house.
Well, because when the Colorado decision came down from the U.S.
few votes necessary to turn over control of the lower house of Congress.
Why is this significant?
Well, because when the Colorado decision came down from the U.S. Supreme Court, they very clearly said that while the states did not have the authority or the power to bar Donald Trump from the ballot, the Congress could do so by passing legislation in both houses, the Congress could do so by passing legislation in both houses, essentially declaring that the president is guilty of participating in an
Jamie Raskin, the oiliest member of Congress from Maryland, immediately introduced such legislation.
The control of the Republicans by the House at this moment is extremely precarious with, I believe, four vacancies, one of which will be filled or will soon be four vacancies, one of which will be filled certainly by a Democrat in a special election.
So Gary has done yeoman research trying to determine who the next possible backstabbing rhinos might be.
Once again, my colleague Troy Smith and I have uncovered the fact that this insidious plot is being directed by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
He's the political architect, but his financier is venture capitalist Paul Singer.
Troy, do you have a question for Gary?
the news that Mike Johnson through the NRCC has received over $280,000 from Paul Singer since the beginning of 2024.
I believe that donation took place on February 8th, 2024.
What's your comment on that, Gary?
And do you think that speaks to what's going to happen here in the future?
It seems that Singer's made an effort to buy off the House leadership on top of these members that are getting older and possibly retiring.
Well, the fact that he has his hands in almost everything is terrifying considering his track record of donations with respect to the anti-Trumpers going all the way back to, you know, the 2016 primary with Rubio and the substantial donation to Nikki Haley the 2016 primary with Rubio and the substantial donation to Nikki Haley that you guys uncovered too in the FEC reports of So, So, there's no question that this man is attempting to influence every single part of the house.
And, well, why not start at the top?
I mean, why go ahead and... I mean, the amount of money this guy is putting out.
$5,800.
$8,700.
I mean, these figures are staggering.
So, I mean, if you can start at the top, why not?
And that looks like exactly what he's doing.
Gary, you have a very, very substantial following on YouTube that has not duplicated itself on Rumble, which is a terrific platform.
So I want to tell people that the Next News Network can be found on Rumble, and I strongly urge you to go there right now and subscribe, or I should say follow, and you can follow all of this great reporting by Gary Franchi and his team.
So I just pulled that up.
It is Next News Network is the handle right there.
You can find them on X. You can also find them on Rumble.
Strongly urge you folks to sign on.
Gary, final thoughts on this insidious plot?
Go ahead.
Well, I want to point out that we do publish our content to Rumble first, so that's a little caveat there.
But going back to, like, just real quick, we can sort this out by age, and as I mentioned before, Kay Granger is the oldest, but Pence was number five on my list in length of time served, but he's number three on my list when it comes to the age.
So, if there's anyone that we need to be paying attention to, it is Greg Pence.
I would put him right at the top of this list.
Now, I will take this list.
I will publish it to my X platform in a follow-up to that last tweet.
So that everyone can have access to this information.
So I want to make sure this does get out there.
This is critical information.
The American people need to know what exactly is happening because there's no question they want to remove Donald Trump.
They're doing every single thing that they can, whether it's through lawfare, And now, of course, as you mentioned, with the Supreme Court laying out the basic, the roadmap for Jeremy Raskin to follow, we've got a very big problem.
And it looks like that roadmap is being tracked by Singer with Kevin McCarthy.
They've all got an axe to grind.
And if there's one person that has an axe to grind, I would put right there at the top of that list, Greg Pence.
I think that is a great, great deduction.
Okay, we're almost out of time.
Troy, a final question for Gary Frenchie of the Next News Network.
Absolutely, Gary.
You know, Gary, do you think that the media would use... You know, Greg Pence seems to be the perfect thing because Mike Pence really became a media darling after the January 6th thing and he was brought around.
You think that they would spin that as, oh, a Pence is taking down Donald Trump?
They would really run with that, wouldn't they?
Well, actually, what media are we talking about?
I mean, I don't think that the media would want to paint that picture in front of the world, necessarily.
I mean, of course they'd like to cart Pence out because he will take his shots at Trump, his veiled shots, when he's on the air.
But look, the reason I do what I do is because I don't trust the media to do the job correctly.
So, would they go ahead and point out that Something that's so obvious?
I don't, I don't think so.
But you never really know with what the media is up to these days.
All right.
We're going to have to end it there.
Let me thank our friend Gary Francci from the Next News Network for joining us here on the Stone Zone.
And again, please subscribe to the Next News Network, or I should say, follow them on Rumble.
They do great, great work.
Gary, delighted to have you.
Many thanks for making yourself available.
Absolutely.
My pleasure.
Keep up the great work, guys.
Thank you very much.
Folks, if you are interested in history or politics, well, let me recommend to you my New York Times bestselling book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
This is a New York Times bestseller.
It is a lurid tale in which I use eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics to make the case that Lyndon Baines Johnson was at the helm of a conspiracy that included the Secret Service, Big Texas Oil, organized crime, and the banking interests to kill John F. Kennedy in the streets of Dallas on November 22, 1963.
You can get your very own autographed copy, the paperback, which has three extra chapters, By going to themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
That's themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
Folks, this is a potboiler.
It's a murder mystery.
I'm very proud of the heavily documented work here.
So if you are interested in the Kennedy assassination, and you yourself do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy acting alone, check out my book.
I think you will enjoy it.
Troy, you and I had a great space last night.
We want to thank Lance Migliaccio, The Big Mig, and his partner, George Balotin.
They do a great show together, The Big Mig Show.
I also recommend that to you.
And we really broke this down.
I think more and more patriots are becoming aware of what's going on.
Let's go to our next guest.
I want to talk to David Schoen, but in the meantime, Troy, thank you for joining us today with your breakdown, and we will see you on tomorrow's show, The Stone Zone.
Awesome.
Thank you very much, Roger, and it's always an honor.
All right, folks, that was Troy Smith.
If you don't subscribe to Slingshot.News, I strongly recommend you do so.
Joining me now in the Stone Zone is the criminal defense lawyer and Trump impeachment lawyer, David Shone, to talk about the latest developments in the upcoming New York trial of Donald Trump, where he's being prosecuted by District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the so-called Hush Money Trial.
David, welcome to the Stone Zone.
Thank you very much.
So, David, I mean, first of all, I don't understand how this case got elevated to be a criminal trial.
At a minimum, if there's really a case here, isn't it a business records case?
If there were even a case, wouldn't it even be a civil case?
Yeah, I mean, nobody would charge this criminally.
In fact, that's why all of the higher-ups in the office counseled against Trying, bringing this case criminally.
As you well know, they had appointed Alvin Brown, sorry, Cy Vance, appointed a special counsel, Mark Pomerantz, a longtime experienced lawyer in New York, to investigate the matter.
Pomerantz has written a book about it.
Pomerantz was in favor of prosecuting, but he came in favor of prosecuting before he even investigated, it would seem.
But if you read his book, he, all of the higher ups in the office were skeptical at best about bringing a criminal prosecution here.
And as you also know, the feds, Thoroughly examined the situation, decided not to charge anything criminally, and the Federal Election Commission passed on it.
So, this is simply a political move by Alvin Bragg, who ran on a platform of getting Donald Trump.
But, you know, the other point you raise is, not only is it difficult to see how it's a criminal case, but it's difficult to see how it's a felony at all.
And in fact, I think that the indictment is fatally defective, Because the grand jury didn't find what felony was committed.
In other words, it's a jerry-rigged way to come to a felony.
They've charged a misdemeanor, false business records, and then in New York law, under New York law, that becomes a felony if it were to commit another crime.
But the grand jury never identified what the other crime was, and therefore, as a matter of due process and otherwise, it's impossible to defend against.
It would be if the business records were doctored, for example, to Allegedly committed a tax crime, that would be one defense.
If it was for election fraud, that would be another defense, completely.
So, I think it's fatally defective and should have been dismissed.
So, unlike the evaluation trial before Judge Engeron, will Donald Trump be afforded a jury trial in this matter?
Yes, he'll have a jury trial.
So, let's just say, hypothetically, that because of the makeup of the jury, and also because the judge limits certain defenses by Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, Trump were to be convicted.
Is an appeal possible, based on what you just said, that the indictment from the very beginning was fatally flawed?
Oh, sure.
Assuming they preserve the issue.
I hope the lawyers have.
I'm not confident that they have, but I hope they have.
There have been many issues for appeal, including this judge's gag order, but even substantive issues in the case.
I personally thought there were other grounds for recusal that the judge's disqualification that they haven't raised.
Also, this judge was handpicked for this case, not by random selection.
He was assigned to the Trump Foundation case, the Trump Organization case, and the Steve Bannon case.
And the chief administrative judge has said that he picked this judge for him.
He tried to imply that he picked him because Judge was particularly competent.
That's not my experience with this judge.
That would not have been a reason to select him for this case.
There's a long history in this district attorney's office of the district attorney rigging the system to pick a judge.
They would pick a judge to oversee a grand jury investigation, and then that judge would stay on.
That was challenged by the New York Criminal Defense Lawyers Association many years ago, and the system was upheld.
They found there's no constitutional right to random selection.
However, an action was brought in federal court.
And in federal court, the district judge said, this really tends to have the appearance of impropriety or a bias.
And if it were challenged on direct appeal, we might have a different result.
The district attorney's office claims that they stopped this practice several years ago.
I'm not so sure.
But in any event, it looks terrible to have a judge handpicked specifically for this case.
He's a known Trump hater.
They raised the issue that he's contributed to Democratic Party causes de minimis sort of contributions.
That was denied.
The recusal motion was denied based on that.
I don't think they've raised all of the grounds that should be raised for recusal.
I don't think he can be a fair judge.
That's just my opinion, having dealt with him.
I find him to be a very insecure person.
I don't find him to be competent.
And I do find him to hate everything associated with Trump.
Those are all my opinions, my experiences.
I worry about the trial, but I think there'll be a lot of evidentiary issues for appeal also.
I've just heard about one today that I find hard to believe, but we'll see.
There's a very important witness named Bob Costello, who represented Michael Cohen as Michael Cohen's lawyer.
And Bob Costello, according to testimony that he's given to a grand jury and statements he's given to the feds when they were investigating and concluded not to bring charges, Robert Costello testified that he offered Michael Cohen the opportunity to come forward and say whether Donald Trump had done anything wrong in connection with these payments to Stormy Daniels.
And Michael Cohen told him, absolutely not.
And Costello even said to him, listen, Cohen, this is your one chance to really help yourself.
If Donald Trump did anything, now's the time to tell the government.
And Cohen said, no, absolutely not, according to Bob Costello.
And Cohen had waived attorney-client privilege, so Costello was free to say that.
Bob Costello said that today, for the first time, he was contacted by the Trump lawyers and that they told him that the judge has barred his testimony in this case.
That's almost impossible to believe, but that will be a serious appellate issue if that's the case.
All right.
Well, if you're just tuning in, folks, we're on the Stone Zone.
We're talking to criminal defense attorney David Shone.
We're going to take a quick break for a commercial message, and then we'll be back with David Shone and more of his analysis on the upcoming trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan.
At the hands of District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
All three cameras, we're good.
Is there any regrets that you have in life?
I should sit here and say, yeah, I got a lot of regrets.
But when I look back on my life, and I understand the lives that were lost, I mean, I'm sitting here with them.
And I can tell my story.
Former Haskell Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flann is pleading guilty today from law to the FBI.
He was one of the most respected generals in the military.
He was, by definition, the most dangerous possible person for Donald Trump to hire.
...brilliant military career serving 33 years old.
Why was he being so elusive?
Mike Flint, hope, true, and face-like in person.
Welcome back, folks.
You're watching The Stone Zone, and we're here with criminal defense attorney David Schoen.
David Schoen represented Donald Trump in one of the two impeachment trials before the U.S.
Senate.
He's considered one of the foremost legal scholars and criminal defense attorneys in the country.
We're honored to have him.
David, two interesting developments.
Kind of following what you said.
First of all, I find it incredible that Bob Costello, who briefly represented Mr. Cohn, will not be allowed to testify even though Cohn has waived the privilege, which seemed to me that his testimony would be crucial.
I find it almost shocking that the judge, if he really wants a fair trial, is blocking Costello from testifying.
Yeah, I hope that the lawyers will make a full, have made and will make a full proffer of what Bob Costello's testimony would be for the record if the judge indeed is going to deny it.
So let's say, for example, Michael Cohen testifies and he testifies contrary to what he told the government when he was interviewed by the feds.
And he then says, well, he lied back then.
He lied to Bob Costello.
At a minimum, Bob Costello must be permitted to testify as to the incentive Michael Cohen had to tell the truth at the time and the emphasis Bob Costello placed on that incentive to convince Michael Cohen that he must tell the truth and many other things going on in Michael Cohen's life at that time that are relevant to the testimony and to determining for a jury to determine whether he's telling the truth now or then.
Well, as you know, I had my own experience with Michael Cohen, who I've known since, I guess, probably 1988.
But Cohn testified before both houses of Congress in which he falsely claimed that he overheard a telephone conversation on a speakerphone between myself and Donald Trump, in which I told Trump that WikiLeaks had obtained negative information regarding Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Now, first he said that happened in July of 2016, then he said it happened in August of 2016, so he changed his story.
He also named the Trump assistant, who he claimed came into the room to tell Trump that I was holding on line one.
There's a couple problems with this story.
First of all, there is no phone record that bolsters this claim.
Secondarily, the Trump assistant denies that any such thing ever happened, and Cohen changed his testimony.
It's not even logical, by the way.
Those disclosures, which Assange himself spoke about openly on the record numerous times, Wouldn't take place until October.
Interestingly, the government did not call Mr. Cohn as a witness in my trial, because I think they would have, you know, they know he would have been decimated on cross-examination.
Mr. Cohn is not credible.
In writing and verbally, he has contradicted the testimony that he's about to put forward based on all of the news reports.
Also, two breaking developments, one similar to the Costello development, Michael Avenatti, who represented Stormy Daniels, now incarcerated for other crimes, has come forward to say that Cohn told him that it was he, Cohn, who was having an affair with Stormy Daniels and essentially was using blackmailing the Trump organization to provide monies or to reimburse him for monies that who was having an affair with Stormy Daniels and essentially was using blackmailing the Trump organization to provide
If that's true, and again, it's just a media report, but if that's true, Could Avenatti be a witness in this trial, David?
He should be.
If that's true, it's absolutely damning evidence.
It's a very serious matter.
It's something to be taken seriously.
And again, they've got to make a full proffer, because it sounds like if they're really not allowing Castello to testify, that he wouldn't let Avenatti testify either.
And, you know, you've got to make a strong appellate record with a detailed proffer.
which many lawyers don't do, unfortunately.
Now you have this other development, which I find interesting.
As you mentioned earlier, Judge Merchant didn't just give a contribution to any Democrat.
He actually gave a contribution to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
Now, conceding it was only a $15 contribution, but I think the amount is immaterial.
A Judges are supposed to have not only actual lack of conflict, but no appearance of a conflict.
That certainly appears to be a conflict to me.
So, I believe the judge should have been recused or had the good judgment to recuse himself, but has not done so.
Now comes reports that the judge's daughter, Lauren Murchan, who is a Democratic political operative and consultant who works for the Biden-Harris campaign, not to mention the U.S. Senate campaign of Adam Schiff, has attacked Donald Trump, actually posting a picture of Trump behind bars on her Twitter Now X profile.
The media is in high gear trying to discredit this report, claiming falsely that, oh, that's not her profile, when in fact it most definitely is.
The inestimable Laura Loomer has as always brought the receipts.
She's got the receipts.
I spoke to her this morning.
She's going to lay this all out in great detail on her show, Loomer Unleashed, tonight on Rumble.
You're not going to want to miss that.
David, my question is, if this is accurate, would it be meaningful?
Should Trump's lawyers make a new motion for the judge to recuse himself on this basis?
If it's accurate, then in my view, absolutely.
To put in context what you've said about this appearance of impropriety or an appearance of bias, there's a federal statute, 28 U.S.C.
455, but there's a New York law right on it.
It's 22 N.Y.C.R.R.
100.3 and parentheses, capital E, parentheses, number one.
It says, it lists certain examples of things that constitute an appearance of impropriety or a lack of forthrightness, let's say.
And then it says it's not an exclusive list.
So something like this, what's so confounding about all of these Trump prosecutions is they just can't seem to play it straight.
There are a lot of judges on the New York Supreme Court In New York County.
There is absolutely no reason to have a judge with this kind of baggage and attitude and prior comments and contributions sitting on a case of this magnitude involving the President of the United States.
Take another judge.
But yes, if it's accurate, and I think there really needs to be a full investigation because there's this piece by Al Baker, a statement by Al Baker on behalf of the court saying that This was not Laura Merchant, the judge's daughter, who posted this, that she canceled her account last year, that someone now took it over and manipulated and all that.
As you say, Laura Loomer has a number of posts that she believes are relevant directly to this.
Al Baker, she says, is a former New York Times employee.
And there's a lot more to this story.
I think at the end of the day, we have to have a definitive answer from Twitter as to whether this account was canceled and been hacked.
Or not.
Because if the judge's daughter posted this kind of thing, picture of President Trump behind bars, then absolutely it ought to inure to the judge's detriment.
In this case, the judge ought to be off the case in a second.
The statute, you know, specifically talks about financial interest of a minor living at home, minor daughter or son living at home, or Later on, it talks about some other interest in the outcome.
This daughter apparently works for an agency that promotes democratic causes.
According to Laura Loomer, she's been paid by a number of democratic candidates a lot of money that the company has been at least to promote their candidacies and so on and their agendas.
That's just something we don't need to be in this picture.
The theory would be she would then profit if President Trump went to jail.
That's the point of the picture.
And if she's the judge's daughter, who sent him to jail.
All of this right now is theoretical, I think, until one gets to the bottom.
Of what happened.
But if it is accurate, then yes, I think they should file another recusal motion.
And by the way, this judge has prohibited them from filing motions unless he gives permission.
I would love to see the optic of this judge denying them permission to file a motion for his disqualification.
It really is quite extraordinary.
It amazes me the judge hasn't been recused or had the good judgment to recuse himself so far.
I think like Judge Engeron, he wants his 15 minutes.
He wants to be a liberal hero.
This is as much about, it's not about justice, it's really about him.
If you're just tuning in, folks, we're here with David Schoen, criminal defense lawyer, who ably represented Donald Trump in one of the two impeachment proceedings against him in the U.S.
Senate.
We're going to take a quick commercial break, but when we come back, I want to talk to David Schoen about the documents case.
Uh, and what's going on there.
So take a moment to hear from our commercial sponsors, and we'll be right back with David Schoen, criminal defense lawyer, right here on The Stone Zone.
She called me today, and she told me something, and I said, you have got to tell the and I said, you have got to tell the audience this.
They need to hear this, because it's really good news for those of you that, well, are taking Bella Grace.
Well, I went to my hairdresser, and I had not told her about this product that I've been taking.
When she was blow-drying my hair, she said, you, I just noticed when I was parting your hair and fixing it that you have a bunch of new hair growth.
I've been going to this lady for probably 13 years, and she's never said that to me.
And I had noticed it but for the fact that she, the fact that she noticed it was, I had to call Bran right away and tell him she just said you've never had this like this and it's growing and you just have all these baby hairs growing in and they're kind of curly and so I just told her that what I was taking and she was amazed so.
Bella Grace Elixir.
MelissaHouseBG.com Hi neighbor, Pat Boone here.
Today I want to help you find some peace of mind concerning your money.
Like it or not, we're all living in a financial war zone.
That's right.
We're watching our hard-earned dollars get crushed by inflation.
In fact, recently inflation reached its highest level in 40 years.
And on top of that, cash, which has always represented freedom and privacy, is more and more being replaced by a cashless system.
That's right.
Powerful forces are definitely waging a war against cash.
So, I'm encouraging you to prepare before it's too late.
Call or text the number on the screen for a free report, The Secret War on Cash from Swiss America.
Discover how a few simple steps can protect your money Well, welcome back, folks.
I'm Roger Stone, and we're here in the Stone Zone.
your free report, "The Secret War on Cash," and make sure to mention, Pat Boone sent ya. - Well, welcome back folks.
I'm Roger Stone, and we're here in the Stone Zone.
Joining me is criminal defense lawyer, David Schoen.
We've been talking about the upcoming trial in Manhattan brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg against Donald Trump.
What should, in my opinion, be a civil trial, if that at all.
It's a business records case, certainly not a criminal case.
Before we leave this question, David, yesterday, I believe it was, we learned that Donald Trump
Now, I think that the so-called valuations trial, where I was very happy to see that he finally got justice and they lowered the appeal bond to a still expensive but at least manageable level, was one in which Trump was not gagged and he could step out in the hall or after a court proceeding and give his side of the story.
In other words, defend himself.
In the court of public opinion.
That's perhaps why we saw Trump go up in the polls during this proceeding because, well, the average American can understand the whole concept.
There was no victim.
Trump borrowed money from banks.
Those banks did their own appraisals on the assets that he put forward as collateral.
Those banks got paid back on time, in some cases actually early, and they made as much as $40 million in interest on their loan.
Who was hurt?
Who was damaged?
The answer is no one.
In fact, as you know, Trump was prosecuted under a law that no one else has ever been prosecuted.
But this gag, I don't know if you've had a chance to examine it, in the Bragg trial, I think will not afford Trump that opportunity.
On the other hand, the gag is kind of strangely constructed based on what I've seen.
Any observations here?
I think it's a horrible development.
It has no place in our system.
Interestingly, now, you know, they're focusing on the social media posts about this judge's daughter.
The judge and his family are not included within the gag order.
But anyway, this is a matter of great public interest.
The district attorney wrote a long indictment, held press conferences detailing what he claims Donald Trump did that was illegal.
President Trump has to be able to respond to all of these things at all times, to point out the political motivation of the prosecutor, to point out evidentiary failings with the case, everything about the case.
This idea that, you know, people are put at risk if he does.
He's a public person who has a great following.
They're entitled to hear what he has to say.
He's also in the middle of a political campaign now.
It's not fair to politically prosecute him.
And not allow him to respond in political terms and in real fact terms.
He has to be able to defend himself publicly.
That's part of a public trial in the case.
A gag order is to be used most sparingly and to be most narrowly tailored and not have all of the extra commentary that this judge has given because he likes to take every opportunity he has to say something negative about President Trump.
It's not fair, it's unbalanced, and there shouldn't be such an order in place.
David, is the order interlocutory?
In other words, is Trump able to appeal the gag order?
Does he have to use that in his overall appeal in the event that he is convicted?
It's a question.
He'd have to get permission to take an interlocutory appeal over the gag order.
He might well seek it, but I'm not sure now, you know, he can really afford to fight on so many different Yeah, I was myself subjected to such a gag order.
Mine was so broad that no member of my family was allowed to make public comment.
None of my supporters.
case, he's not allowed to direct anyone or use any surrogate.
You're nobody's surrogate.
You have your own mind and opinions, and hopefully people like you will speak out about what's happening in that case.
Yeah, I was myself subjected to such a gag order.
Mine was so broad that no member of my family was allowed to make public comment.
None of my supporters.
That's pretty broad.
Yours was the most outrageous gag order I've ever seen in any case anywhere in the civilized world.
Well, and interestingly enough, I was gagged prior to trial, during trial, and I continue to be gagged right up until the time I was supposed to be remanded to prison.
I don't think that's ever happened in the history of our country.
And because of the gag, you were denied a fair jury also, frankly, because the lawyers really couldn't put out there the story.
Anyway, that was a complete nightmare.
It's the most draconian and inappropriate gag order I've ever seen.
Well, we don't need to relive that piece of history.
David, let's talk for a moment about the all-important immunity case that's now going to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Trump's lawyers obviously argued that he had presidential immunity to the trial judge.
She rejected that.
They then went to the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
That seemed like a pretty politicized proceeding.
It was not surprising that they also ruled against him.
Then, as I think most people know, Special Counsel Jack Smith had actually sought initially to leapfrog the appeals court and take it directly to the Supreme Court in an effort to streamline, but I should say, speed up and expedite the trial, proving speed up and expedite the trial, proving that that trial itself is an act of election interference.
The left seems bent on having a trial of Donald Trump before the election.
I don't think the Bragg trial was their first choice.
In fact, I think it's the weakest of the cases against him.
If you were arguing the immunity question before the Supreme Court on behalf of Donald Trump, just hypothetically, what would you say?
I would think that the court ought to come up with a framework for immunity.
First of all, I'll say...
Why I think the Supreme Court took it.
I think the Supreme Court took it because the Court of Appeals opinion, while very comprehensive and detailed, is just too categorically against the idea of immunity for president, which puts the institution of the presidency and the president himself or herself in great danger.
We can't have a president worrying about making decisions in wartime and otherwise that might then subject that person to criminal prosecution if they made the wrong decision in someone else's judgment afterwards.
And so the Court of Appeals categorically seemed to deny the idea of immunity from criminal charges.
What I would suggest is that the appropriate framework is the framework drafted by the court in Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which held that a president is immune from civil liability for any act taken as an official act during the presidency, including to the outer perimeters of the official duties of that office.
That, I think, ought to be a framework for the So far, President Trump's lawyers, in my view at least, have taken too extreme a position, a position that doesn't need to be taken, when they argued in the Court of Appeals that if the President were to order SEAL Team 6 to kill his political opponent, He would have immunity and would have to first be impeached and convicted before he could be prosecuted.
I think that's just plain wrong.
And the easy answer was, no, it doesn't fit within the framework.
In no circumstance could that be considered an official act.
We'll see how the court plays it out.
There's some interesting writings from some of the justices on these issues before, but people change their positions also.
But I think that's a fair framework.
And then the question would come to be, did President Trump Arguably act within his official duties when he ordered what he ordered or directed Pence to take certain steps or insisted on an investigation based on the information he had at that time.
I can tell you unequivocally I believe President Trump believed that there was a question about the election integrity at that time.
There needed to be an investigation.
I can tell you also that the leading election law expert in the country has said nobody knows what the Vice President's role truly is under the Electoral Count Act in such a circumstance.
And so to prosecute this thing criminally seems absolutely wrong-headed to me.
And I do think it was within his official act, given his mindset, At the time, and his belief that he had an obligation under the oath he took under Article 2 and under the Take Care Clause in Article 2 to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
Excellent observation.
You speak of mens rea, the requirement, which would be true in the Washington case, D.C.
case as well.
They have to prove Trump's state of mind.
Their argument will be, well, the attorney general told him the election was on the up and up, and the CIA director told him Uh, that the election was on the up and up.
And the FBI director told him.
I don't think any of those things matter.
What matters is what Trump himself believed.
And only Trump himself knows what Trump himself believed.
On the other hand, the chances of a fair trial in Washington, D.C., relatively slim, based on my personal experience.
David, turning quickly, with just a few minutes left here, to the so-called Documents Trial.
I don't know if you read the latest from that trial.
The judge seemed unimpressed with the argument by Trump's lawyers that the Presidential Records Act allows him to hold on to certain classified and top secret documents.
However, she did seem to me to be moved by the selective prosecution argument, which really burst into public view with the report by Robert Herr, the special counsel charged with investigating Joe Biden's retention of classified the special counsel charged with investigating Joe Biden's retention of classified and top secret
The left had been insane since Judge Cannon, an honest judge, by the luck of the draw, not through some phony related case motion or by appointment, was assigned to this case.
Any predictions or observations about the so-called documents case?
Yeah, I can't really make predictions, but observations would be this.
This judge has been unfairly picked on across the board.
by the media.
She has a terrific background as a prosecution background, law clerk background, family of immigrants, worked her way up.
Mother worked very hard to build up her career.
Excellent academic credentials.
She's trying to be as fair as any judge can be.
Very different from some of the other judges who have been assigned to Trump cases in that regard, and they constantly mock her in the media.
Here's the thing.
I think Jack Smith has badly misled the public about this Presidential Records Act.
He has said it's irrelevant, completely And so on.
I think that's absolutely wrong.
It's directly relevant to the state of mind, once again, of President Trump.
Remember, there's a 2012 decision from Amy Berman Jackson, a judge you well know and who's a real Trump hater, in which she said the statute only designates one person, only identifies one person who can designate the nature of documents that were presidential records.
And that's the chief executive himself, the president.
Then she goes on, in her opinion, to talk about the complete, virtually complete control over records during his time in office.
He enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents.
And she says, it's only the president who can decide what documents are official presidential records and what are personal.
President Trump has said he designated records to be personal.
That's relevant Jack Smith's wrong that the PRA isn't relevant to the case, because if President Trump believed that he was entitled to hold on to these documents as personal records or otherwise, that's directly relevant to the mental state Smith has to prove to get a conviction in the case.
And so the Presidential Records Act is directly relevant to the case.
It may not be dispositive, but it's directly relevant.
And we'll see how that plays out.
David Schoen, eminent criminal defense attorney.
We apologize for that little technical glitch.
I do want to remind you before we go that the show is brought to you by the great folks at MyPillow.com.
And frankly, we'd have a hard time keeping the lights on without the patronage and support of MyPillow.com.
So please take a moment to go to MyPillow.com and when you do, please use promo code stone.
That's right.
Promo code stone.
Now, there are a lot of great products there.
If you think that my pillow is simply about pillows or blankets or bedding, well, that would be wrong.
Check out the special on the incredibly absorbent bath towels, for example.
Or the men and the women's opulent, luxurious bath robes.
Or the men and women's moccasin slippers.
I, of course, love the dog beds.
I have one for each of my dogs or the pet blankets.
Many, many great products.
So, folks, I implore you, stop by MyPillow.com and use promo code STONE when you do so.
God will bless you for it.
It'll make Mrs. Stone pretty happy as well.
Anyway, we're out of time.
God bless you, and Godspeed, and many thanks for joining us at the Stone Zone.
You can follow us at rumble.com slash rogerstone.
You can also see us at patriot.tv.
Until tomorrow, I'm Roger Stone.
God bless you once again, and Godspeed.
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!
▲
Export Selection