All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
59:37
Will The 2024 Election Be Decided In The Supreme Court Or The Ballot Box? The StoneZONE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Stone Zone with legendary Republican strategist and political icon and pundit Roger Stone.
Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents.
He is a New York Times best-selling author and a longtime friend and advisor of President Donald Trump.
As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues, and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society.
Due to his four-plus decades in the political and cultural arena, Stone has become a pop culture icon.
And now, here's your host, Roger Stone!
Welcome, I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are back in the Stone Zone.
This may be the first presidential contest in American history that is more decided in the courts than at the ballot box.
We have the ongoing spectacle of a former president of the United States being prosecuted in Manhattan on a trumped up charge that at worst would be a business records violation.
That would be even if Trump himself were guilty of that, which he is accused.
This is a travesty, one that I myself have been through.
The judge, despite various acts of bias, including a campaign contribution to Joe Biden and a classic conflict of interest in which his daughter, an adult Democrat political operative, makes millions of dollars using the very trial that he presides over as a talking point in her fundraising.
You have the president moving for a change of venue, as I did.
That will be denied.
And the president moving for the recusal of the judge, as I did, that has been denied.
You have seen the judge limit those matters the president can offer in his own defense.
It's happened in my trial as well.
I was never allowed to prove that there had never been any online hack of the Democratic National Committee by the Russians, or for that matter, anyone else.
So pardon me if I've seen this movie.
There were also, however, extremely important arguments before the U.S.
Supreme Court pertaining to the immunity of a U.S.
president.
We're going to be talking about that today.
Joining me first is my regular co-host, Troy Smith, the editor-in-chief of Slingshot.News.
Roger, happy Monday.
Always good to be back in the Stone Zone.
Great to be back with you.
We are really privileged today, as we look at all of these legal questions, to be joined by Will Scharf.
Will Scharf is one of the President's attorneys.
He is a former federal prosecutor.
He also just happens to be a Republican candidate for the Office of Attorney General of Missouri, and we're going to talk about that a little bit later.
I'm very pleased that a member of the President's legal team, Will Scharf, can join us on The Stone Zone today.
Great to be with you guys.
Thanks so much for having me.
Well, it's terrific to have you.
I want to thank you again.
You did my WABC New York radio show.
It was extremely well received, and I appreciate your being with us today.
Let's start with the federal stuff.
Every week it seems that Judge Cannon, who seems to me to be exactly what the hard left doesn't want, an honest judge guided by the rule of law, continues to strip back the veil because, as I learned in my own case, these prosecutors love to operate in secrecy.
They love to redact as much as they possibly can so that the people And maybe even the plaintiff doesn't really totally understand, pardon me, the defendant doesn't always totally understand what exactly has transpired and what is currently going on.
So starting with that case, I'm interested in your observations in the most recent developments in the case, including the judge's decision to To continue to shield the identity of certain potential witnesses, but also more recent decisions in the case.
Yeah, so Judge Cannon has released publicly information, some of which was known, some of which wasn't.
But some of these unredacted documents are very, very interesting.
So, for example, we had documents released last week relating to the very serious allegations of misconduct that have been leveled by Walt Nauta's attorney.
Walt Nauta is one of President Trump's co-defendants, a personal aide to President Trump.
Walt Nowtis' attorneys have leveled very serious accusations of misconduct against a prosecutor in the special counsel's office named Jay Bratt.
The allegation is basically that in an early meeting between Jay Bratt and Walt Nowtis' attorney, Stanley Woodward, Bratt essentially threatened Woodward that if he couldn't get Nowtis to testify, his pending application for a D.C.
Superior Court judgeship would be in jeopardy.
That is a very, very serious accusation.
It had been reported on publicly in a number of publications, but we haven't seen it made public in court documents until last week.
There were also revelations relating to how exactly these boxes of documents ended up in President Trump's possession.
And it appears, based on the unredacted documents, that actually a very large quantity of these boxes were shipped directly to President Trump on a pallet by NARA, the National Archives.
Remember that President Trump is being charged essentially with willfully possessing national defense information that he knew he didn't have the right to have in his possession, and then refusing to turn it over to a federal official he knew had the right to possess it.
Now, if those documents were shipped to President Trump directly from the federal government, proving that he knew he wasn't supposed to have them becomes a much, much thornier factual question for the prosecution.
So, in short, seeing all of these things that have been kind of under the table and whispered about come to light in public court documents in the last few days, I think really shows how weak that prosecution is.
Uh, and shows some of the very serious issues, uh, both ethical and legal, uh, that, that I think will continue to come to light in the coming months.
Uh, it seemed to me in some of the earlier oral arguments, uh, while the judge appeared, of course, he's always reading the tea leaves, but while it appeared that the judge, uh, was not buying the, uh, Presidential Records Act as providing a shield to the president in this area, She did seem somewhat more interested in the Selective Prosecution Act.
I mean, we do have a report from a special counsel, a special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland, who could have appointed anyone he wanted, that specifically says that President Joe Biden willfully retained certain top secret and classified documents in violation of the law.
Well, they go on to say that despite the fact they say several places that he did this, they go on to say that he should not essentially be prosecuted because of his age.
Kind of an odd conclusion.
Beyond that, you still have in the documents case a preservation by the president's lawyers of a potential challenge to the legality of Jack Smith's very appointment.
There is, I think, a legitimate legal theory, without getting in the weeds, that because he was never approved by the U.S.
Senate, because he was not a sitting U.S.
attorney, and thus having been approved by the U.S.
Senate, I should say confirmed, that his appointment may be illegitimate.
Tell me your thinking on all of that, if you would.
Yes, on the Presidential Records Act point, what Judge Cannon has basically said is that she views that as an issue for trial.
So, I think that we will end up presenting evidence based on the Presidential Records Act that President Trump believed that he had the right to retain these documents.
And that is a defense under the law based on the Espionage Act subsection that President Trump has been charged with.
If the jury believes that President Trump believed that he had the right to retain these documents, then that would be a defense.
That would be exonerative.
So while the case wasn't dismissed on the basis of the Presidential Records Act, that's going to be an issue for trial.
On the appointments question, we've made that argument in Florida, as has former Attorney General Ed Meese and a number of others, that Jack Smith's appointment is constitutionally invalid.
Uh, that's going to be an issue that we're going to have to see play out in the courts, likely both at the district court level and on appeal.
But I think the argument is compelling and strong.
We've never had a special counsel before who had not gone through the Senate confirmation process, who was not thereby made an officer of the United States through the typical constitutional process.
So that's a powerful argument, and Judge Cannon seems open to it.
And on the selective prosecution point, I think it's clear that this is a selective prosecution.
Whether the case ends up being dismissed or not, I think the optics around all of these documents cases just stink that, you know, Hillary Clinton was given a slap on the wrist, Joe Biden won't be prosecuted because I guess the jury would be too sympathetic because he's old and forgetful.
And yet President Trump is facing felony indictment in the Southern District of Florida over exactly the same offenses, whereas the conduct of Biden and Hillary doesn't even have the legal shield of the Presidential Records Act and some of the other defenses that we've raised.
So I think it's clearly a case of selective prosecution.
I think the American people understand that, and we'll have to see how that plays out in court in the coming weeks.
Folks, if you're just tuning in, we're talking to Will Scharf, who is one of President Trump's attorneys, a very able attorney, also a candidate for the office of Attorney General of Missouri.
We're going to talk about that in a little bit.
I'm here with my co-host, Troy Smith, and our guest, Will Scharf.
We're going to take a quick commercial break and we'll be back with Will Scharf for some more discussion of the tsunami of lawfare being waged at President Donald Trump.
Don't go away.
And we'll be right back.
Sounds rolling, all three cameras, we're good.
And your speed.
We're ready.
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 National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, is pleading guilty today to lying 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.
Only brilliant military career-serving 33-year-old.
Why was he being so abusive?
Mike Flynn, hoping true and face-like in prison.
A lot of people are having great success with a weight management program with Bella Tripp, but it's just a tool.
In terms of ingredients, Chromex or Chromium Picolini improves the actions of insulin, so you have better glucose management, and in addition, it promotes fat utilization.
Fat utilization or fat burning is also a feature of metabolite, which are two botanicals that stimulate a switch called AMP kinase.
And so you tend to burn fat, reduce belly fat or visceral fat.
Who doesn't want that?
Metabolite has the ability to stimulate satiety or reduce those cravings.
That's really very, very important.
And it does that by raising GLP-1 levels.
In addition, we've addressed the microbiome by using prebiotics.
healthier microbiome, better weight management.
Welcome back folks.
If you're just tuning in, I'm Roger Stone, and yes, we're back on The Stone Zone.
I am here with my co-host, Troy Smith of Slingshot.News, and our special guest today, Will Scharf, an able attorney from Missouri who is representing President Donald Trump, but who also happens to be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the office of Attorney General of Missouri.
We're going to talk about that a little bit and see if we can help Will raise a little campaign money.
But, Troy, you're up next.
A question for Will Scharf.
Absolutely.
Well, just one last thing on the documents case.
I think the narrative in the mainstream media has been that Biden complied and Trump didn't.
That's what they're saying.
Can you speak to that a little bit and the nature of that claim?
Because it seems to me to be completely false.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
President Trump was making, I'd say, diligent efforts to comply with reasonable requests for documents.
He was personally going through many of these boxes to find materials that were requested or that had to be returned.
President Trump was, I'd say, fully cooperative up until the point that DOJ raided Mar-a-Lago in a completely unprecedented, unwarranted, unjustified, Blatant use of force.
So I think that's an absolute garbage narrative.
And it's also worth noting that, you know, Mar-a-Lago is a Secret Service secured facility, totally on a different level than Joe Biden's garage, where these boxes and boxes of top secret documents seem to have just been sitting around for years.
Biden himself said that he didn't know how these documents came to be in his possession, came to be in different places.
Which shows a total lack of awareness, lack of really the presence of any responsible chain of custody in stark contradistinction to President Trump's actions and activities.
So I think the facts of the case against Joe Biden are far more damning than the facts in President Trump's case.
And that's reflected in our selective prosecution motion.
And I think the American public understands that.
Again, the idea that President Trump may be forced to stand trial over these sorts of document retention issues, particularly the fact that he was indicted under the Espionage Act, I think just to sort of inflame the passions of the American people.
It definitely speaks to selective prosecution.
We've moved to dismiss on that on that ground.
And I think that contrary, again, to the mainstream media narrative, that Florida case is far, far weaker on the facts and on the law than people realize.
And we're hopeful that more of that comes to light again in the coming weeks and months.
Look, I'm a layman and I'm very grateful for the for the X and substack of Julie Kelly.
Who seems to move very quickly to analyze the latest filings, highlight them for you, try to explain what they mean.
She does an amazing job.
Proud to be a subscriber for her Substack.
But it would actually appear to me, before we leave the documents case, that the more that is redacted, the more you see what appears to me To be a conspiracy to entrap the President of the United States, to set him up.
I mean, it appears to me he didn't ask for this pallet of documents, boxes of documents to be sent to Florida.
They were sent at the initiative of NARA, who then turns around and says, oh, look, the President has all these documents he's not supposed to have.
Is that unfair?
I don't think that's unfair.
I think we're going to see more facts about exactly how these documents came to be at Mar-a-Lago and frankly what was in these boxes of documents as this case continues to play out in court.
I agree with you, Julie Kelly's an absolute killer.
She seems to move through court filings faster than I can.
I'm not on the trial team in Florida.
Uh, so I'm actually seeing much of this information for the first time as it's being on redacted.
Uh, and she's been just an awesome resource and I think a great resource to the public.
Uh, at least the public who's interested in following the objective truth about all of these cases.
Um, but but I think that's right that these documents.
Again, they have to prove as part of the charges, as part of these Espionage Act charges, that President Trump knew that he did not have the right to retain these documents.
And the fact that they were effectively being shipped to him by the federal government, I think creates a very, very serious factual question that any fair jury would rightfully scrutinize over the President's knowledge and intent, which is ultimately at the heart of this case.
Will, are we ever going to know exactly what these documents pertain to?
Seems to me that that's the great mystery here.
Seems to me that the government would like to charge President Trump for the retention of certain documents, but they don't particularly want the American people to know what those documents pertain to.
Am I reading that right?
I think we haven't seen those publicly so far.
I think if the case were to move to trial, we would hear a lot more about them and probably see the documents themselves.
I would note, though, that this is often talked about as a classified documents case, which is actually a legal misnomer.
The Espionage Act section that President Trump is charged under Refers to national defense information, not classified information.
National Defense Information, or NDI, is a separate classification under the law.
Relates specifically to information that could damage America or help its foreign adversaries.
Uh, as you know, classification is a controversial issue.
I think most people would agree that the government over classifies quite radically.
We're not talking about classified information here just because a document had a classified marking on it.
It's just really important to focus on what President Trump is actually being charged with as opposed to what the media represents this case as.
make it national defense information under the law.
And that's going to be another factual issue that's going to have to play out as this case progresses.
But it's just really important to focus on what President Trump is actually being charged with, as opposed to what the media represents this case as.
I think that's equally true, actually, in the New York trial.
But in Florida in particular, it's really important to note that this is willful possession without appropriate right of national defense information, specifically, And I think the government's going to have a very difficult time proving that, because President Trump didn't do anything wrong.
Okay.
So before we move to a discussion of those Supreme Court arguments last week, let's touch for a moment on the New York case.
Your assessment of that so far?
I mean, I've known Donald Trump for 45 years.
I know him extremely well and I can see that he is angry, which I think he has every right to be.
I think he's bored because he has to sit there in a trial when he should be out campaigning for president or raising money for his campaign for president.
I can understand the indignity of this because it is It's a stretch to say the least, in my opinion.
Your thoughts of how that trial is going so far?
So far, I think it's going very, very well.
I'm somewhat limited in what I can say about witness testimony because of the unconstitutional unilateral gag order that Judge Mershawn applied against us.
But by all reports, things are going very, very well.
And I think the reason for that is that President Trump didn't actually do anything wrong here.
What he's being charged with is a business records violation.
The allegation is that recordings made in his personal ledger in 2017 inaccurately reflected payments made to Michael Cohen, his lawyer, as legal retainer payments.
Now, as Todd Blanch, attorney for President Trump, said in opening arguments, the relevant entries made were not made by President Trump.
He was in the White House running the country.
This is 2017.
The business entries in question were made by a woman named Deb in Trump Tower, hundreds and hundreds of miles away in New York, and President Trump didn't really have anything to do with those.
So again, the business records themselves were not inaccurate.
They reflected legal payments to President Trump's lawyer as that.
And President Trump didn't really make them.
So just at a very basic factual level, this case doesn't have any legs to stand on.
And that's why I think what you're going to see, what we've seen and will continue to see, is a smoke and mirrors strategy by the DA's office.
That they're going to throw up all of this smoke about election stuff and decades-old stories about affairs and, you know, Playboy playmates and whatever else.
But in terms of the actual facts of the case, I think as the factual picture becomes more and more clear, it's going to come increasingly into focus that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong here.
that this case is a show trial.
And I would hope that any fair-minded juror would vote to acquit for that reason alone.
And I think that even in a New York jury, the facts here are going to be strong enough that we're going to end up winning the day here. - Well, from your mouth to God's ear.
Look, if paying a woman to maintain her silence regarding a sexual affair or a crime Well, then Bill Clinton would be in jail because he paid Paula Jones $868,000 in in a settlement and in a non-disclosure agreement And that assumes that Trump is in fact guilty of what he's accused of and as you just pointed out that's not at all been proven It just seems to me this is
With their strategy in Florida stalled, with their strategy in D.C.
stalled, this is all they have.
And they will try to use it to vilify the president, drain his time—this is absolutely key—from the campaign trail, and obviously drain his money for attorneys.
Although it was revealed last week, after all of the criticism, of the president, of having super PACs associated with him pay his legal fees in actions that are all related to his running for president.
He wouldn't be a defendant if he weren't running for president.
Now we learn the Democratic National Committee has been paying Joe Biden's legal fees as they pertain to the investigation of the special counsel looking into his illegal retention of documents as vice president and as a U.S. senator.
Let's get to the Supreme Court and the immunity agreement.
That is obviously a crucial decision by the court.
Just to review for people, the president's lawyers first raised the immunity issue at the trial court level.
The trial court judge rejected it.
They then went to appeal to the appeals court in D.C.
Special counsel Smith wanted to leapfrog the appeals court, go directly to the U.S.
Supreme Uh, in order to expedite his prosecution, the Supreme Court would not agree to that.
Therefore, they ended up back at the appeals court.
The appeals court ruled against the president.
No surprise there.
This is DC.
The appeals court sat on the appeal of my gag for 16 months, uh, and then ruled that it wasn't ripe for decision.
Cause I had never asked the original trial judge.
Who had placed that illegal unconstitutional gag on me to remove the gag as if she would have ever done so.
So I sustained 16 months of damage where the CNN and the Washington Post were destroying me as a Russian spy, as a traitor, etc., etc.
So I did not have high hopes for the appeals court in D.C.
And then the matter is now before the Supreme Court.
Your associate, Mr. Sauer, has been criticized, to be fair, about his handling of one specific question regarding whether, if I can get this right, if the President ordered the assassination of his political opponents, would he have immunity from prosecution?
This seems to have now come up twice.
It's a distraction, I agree, from the larger issues, but tell us how you think the argument went last week.
Address that specific issue, if you could.
Yeah, we thought the arguments went very, very well.
And we think that's evidenced by the fact that there was a massive liberal media freakout immediately after the arguments.
So we felt very good coming out of the court.
We think the justices were viewing this issue in exactly the right way.
What we're talking about here is whether a president can be criminally indicted for his official acts in office.
We're not talking about private conduct.
If a president shoots somebody dead or takes a bribe or anything like that, that would be private conduct.
We're talking about, can a president be indicted for official decisions that he makes while he's in office?
And we believe that the Constitution provides a very simple answer to that, which is no, unless he's first impeached and convicted by the House and Senate.
That's in our view what naturally follows by the Executive Vesting Clause and the Impeachment Judgment Clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.
And I think that's borne out by the fact that no president in American history has ever been criminally prosecuted for his official act.
That's our system.
That's the way it's always been until we reached President Trump.
And suddenly he's been hailed into court for quintessentially presidential conduct.
I mean, if you look at the D.C.
indictment, you're talking about asking the Department of Justice to investigate election fraud, considering replacing the acting attorney general.
I mean, these are core executive functions.
And in our view, if you don't have immunity for those sorts of acts, the presidency will be forever crippled, that every successive president will be essentially blackmailed by the threat of criminal prosecution once he leaves office, that the presidency itself will be defanged as an institution.
And that will undermine our entire constitutional system of executive power.
It's worth noting that in 1982, the Supreme Court recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that a president has absolute civil immunity for his official acts in office.
So all we're really asking the Supreme Court to do is apply that existing civil standard into the criminal context.
And it seemed like the justices were deeply concerned about the idea that a president could be indicted for core official conduct.
In terms of the SEAL Team 6 hypothetical or at the Supreme Court, we were asked about military coups.
The short answer is that our constitution, our system of government provides very, very powerful checks against those sorts of abuses of office.
Those checks do not include criminal prosecution.
In the case of SEAL Team 6, if they're given a blatantly unlawful order, they're actually under a legal obligation to disobey that order.
And I would certainly hope that that would happen if a president ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his political rival.
That doesn't mean that a president undertaking an official act like that, giving an order to the military, should be susceptible to criminal prosecution.
Otherwise, I mean, President Obama could be indicted for drone strikes that killed American citizens.
George W. Bush could be indicted for actions relating to the Iraq War.
It's a never-ending cycle of recrimination and political prosecution that will severely damage the office of the presidency.
So we view this case as even bigger than President Trump, bigger than the facts presented.
We view this as being about our constitutional system and about safeguarding the office of the presidency.
And we heard very similar concerns for many of the justices.
Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, Justice Alito in particular.
I think we had a very good day.
I'm hopeful for how that opinion comes out.
At the very least, we think that we're going to get a remand that will push this case off past Election Day, which is important for President Trump and for the sanctity of our electoral process.
But we're hopeful that the Supreme Court recognizes a vigorous doctrine of executive immunity that will shield the presidency and ensure that presidents can make the tough decisions that they have to make.
Without being unduly influenced by the threat of criminal prosecution once they leave office.
Excellent.
Excellent answer.
Thank you very much.
All right, folks, if you're just tuning in, we're here with Will Scharf, who represents President Donald Trump as one of his attorneys.
He's also a candidate for Attorney General of the state of Missouri.
We're going to cut to a quick commercial break, and then we're going to talk about that campaign for Attorney General.
Along with my co-host Troy Smith of slingshot.news.
So don't go anywhere.
We'll be right back.
We've learned through the pandemic we can never be caught unprepared again.
And so many Americans when COVID hit, they had nothing in the house.
Stores were shut down and doctor's offices were shut down.
And even if doctors prescribed drugs, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, pharmacists wouldn't fill the prescriptions.
That was a nightmare.
Now the situation is much worse.
We have these horrible supply chain problems.
In our emergency medical kit at the Wellness Company, we have eight prescription drugs that are all potentially life-saving.
Most people have died with COVID.
They died in the hospital because they didn't receive early treatment.
Every American family should have one of these.
I can tell you the wellness company kit is the answer.
The End Glutathione.
I'm so excited that we have a fantastic delivery system for it because glutathione is the master detoxifier and master antioxidant.
Glutathione is like oxygen, okay?
You will die in three to seven minutes if you don't get glutathione.
Wow.
At three to seven minutes.
And we have a way now to get the whole glutathione in your cells in about 90 seconds without using a glutathione IV.
It is the most important molecule in your body.
Glutathione helps your brain, your liver.
It performs 400 functions in your body.
So, it will detox every heavy metal, every pesticide, every herbicide, It will detox spike protein from your body.
It will detox graphene oxide.
And it is the master detox fire antioxidant.
So glutathione is needed every single day.
newme.com/house1. - Welcome back folks.
I'm Roger Stone.
And you are in the Stone Zone with my co-host, Troy Smith, from Slingshot.News, and also our guest today, Trump attorney and Republican candidate for Attorney General of Missouri, Will Scharf.
Join me in the Stone Zone today.
Will, during the Trump administration, you worked to support conservative judicial nominations.
You played an instrumental role in the confirmations of Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett, as well as dozens of other lower federal court judges, putting in place solid conservatives consistent with putting in place solid conservatives consistent with President Trump's campaign pledge.
As a federal prosecutor, you work the violent crimes unit in one of the country's most dangerous cities.
So it appears to me you have broad legal experience.
Tell us about your campaign for attorney general.
You know, Roger, I'm sick and tired, like I know Republicans are around the country, of our politicians being bought and paid for by special interests, of kowtowing to the lobbyists, of not representing we the people in government.
The core thesis of our campaign is that we as conservatives can do better than the political establishment we have, whether that's in Washington, D.C.
or here in Missouri, in Jefferson City.
So I've never run for office before.
My background, as you said, is as a constitutional attorney and as a violent crimes prosecutor, obviously now working for President Trump on some of the most important cases this country has seen in a very long time.
And I'm a political outsider, and I want to shake things up in Jefferson City.
And that's what we're doing.
We've gotten all over the state.
We have the support of some of the biggest grassroots conservative organizations in the state.
We're crushing it, I think, on every front.
And we're really excited.
It's an August primary, but if things keep going the way that they are, I think we're going to have a very, very good summer.
And it's just been heartening to me to see how many conservatives are really waking up for the first time and understanding that just because you have an R next to your name doesn't mean that you're actually conservative, doesn't mean that you deserve the support of grassroots conservatives.
Folks, running for an office like Attorney General is extraordinarily expensive.
Will Scharf is a candidate who is deserving of your support.
We're going to put up a graphic now where you can donate to his campaign, and we strongly I urge you to do so.
There you go.
Go to votesharf.com, simple enough, votesharf.com, and please send a generous contribution.
Will Sharf is a dependable conservative with an extraordinary track record.
He is a graduate of Princeton University as well as Harvard Law School.
We're not going to hold that against him.
He has clerked for two federal appellate judges.
He is a solid, dependable conservative now at this moment, as we indicate, rendering absolutely crucial service to the president in this tsunami of lawfare that he is faced with.
Well, I want to thank you for joining the show today.
And if there's anything else we can do to help you in your election, I would be proud and happy to do so.
Thanks so much for having me, Roger.
Great.
Great to be with you guys, and hopefully we'll get to do this again soon.
Great.
Many thanks.
Thank you.
All right, folks.
That was Will Scharf, who is one of President Trump's lawyers, kind of giving us the latest on the documents case in Florida, the ridiculous hush money trial ongoing in New York, and also speaking to us about last week's arguments before the U.S.
Supreme Court pertaining To whether President or not has immunity.
Troy, there was a big meeting this weekend.
Donald Trump and his former nemesis, Governor Ron DeSantis met for two hours privately in Miami.
Now, it is my understanding that Representatives of Governor DeSantis told the Washington Post, who broke this story, that Trump had requested the meeting, yet my sources in the Trump camp tell me that's incorrect, that it was DeSantis who wanted this meeting.
The idea that Ron DeSantis has some enormous financial network Which candidate Trump now needs to tap into is largely false.
Among small and medium-sized donors, DeSantis was an abject failure.
Most of his campaign money in his campaign for president came from very, very large donors and from bundlers.
Most of his donors Most of his donations came from individuals or entities who had to give because they do business in the state of Florida, where the governor has enormous power to affect their business.
And therefore people gave not because they loved Ron DeSantis, but because they had to.
So this idea that DeSantis could somehow deliver a financial network to the president is not accurate.
Many, many of the larger bundlers who were supporting DeSantis have already come over to Trump.
I'm really uncertain what the purpose of this meeting is, but I guess we couldn't decipher that unless we knew who actually asked for the meeting.
And I don't think it was President Trump.
Now, I'm told that the meeting may have been somewhat contentious in the beginning.
Once they got through that, that Governor DeSantis pledged to do whatever he can and whatever is necessary to make sure that President Trump carries Florida.
I hope that that is accurate.
I also hope it proves to be true.
Once again, Troy, I want to go on record as saying that anybody who looks at Florida and thinks it is completely safe and a red state based on the last statewide elections, I think makes a mistake.
Well, I would give President Trump an edge here.
The fact that the Democrats have put recreational marijuana on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, and the fact that they have petitioned on a constitutional amendment on abortion rights, essentially repealing the six weeks ban that DeSantis and the Republican legislature put into place last year.
That is going to jack up turnout among younger voters, particularly, but also among more Democratic-leaning voters.
And of course, the abortion question will be used to try to shape perceptions of the presidential campaign.
Biden and the Democrats, particularly the Florida Democrats, they would like this election to be about abortion.
Not about our open border, not about the illegal invasion of America by migrants, not about the potential for World War Three, not about shipping billions to Ukraine, not about unfreezing hundreds of billions for Iran, not about the cost of a gallon of gasoline, which you can slowly see creeping up.
Not about the cost of groceries when you go to the supermarket if you can find what you're looking for.
They don't want it to be about any of these things.
They would like it to be about abortion.
Your thoughts?
Well, Roger, I think I always come back to what you say because You know, we look at the situation that we uncovered in the 2022 election where DeSantis fundraiser Erica Alba kind of has her fingers all over this Florida voters in charge pack that was given out money to election supervisors across the state of Florida.
And then I also look at the speculation Uh, so you look at the election system just in Florida, you say, well, DeSantis really has some influence here.
Um, and it's, and it's money that's coming from really nefarious groups of people.
And I think, uh, it's been pointed out on this show many times, the idea that he would win Miami-Dade County in the way that he did is pretty much impossible.
And I think, uh, it's, look, it's easy to look at the DeSantis election, Roger.
I think for a lot of Republicans, it is a, well, you know, he won and, and, and Florida has a red governor.
But at the same time, we have to look at how that was obtained.
And I think DeSantis' way that he's politically acting is a lot like the Democrats.
I don't think we win by becoming the Democrats.
I think we win by standing for what we believe in.
And as far as DeSantis is concerned, I'm seeing more and more about VP speculation, Roger.
And I always come back to what we talk about on this show.
The it's it's not prohibited.
But you're saying that Florida is a is a question mark on its own, you know, without any kind of additional legal problems.
Florida is still a toss up.
It's a purple state.
I think and there's been no talk about this from you.
You haven't mentioned this, but I've seen this online and people are speculating about it now because of this meeting that Trump could go back to the original thing that Republicans wanted and to put DeSantis on the ticket.
I don't see that as a possibility because I think any chance you have of winning Florida goes out the window.
If you pick a vice presidential candidate in DeSantis, who is a resident of the same state as President Donald Trump, who also lives in Florida.
So I'd like you to talk about that real quickly.
Trump picking DeSantis would kind of completely rule out any idea of Republicans winning the election and the state of Florida, wouldn't it?
I don't think that that was the purpose of this meeting.
I don't think Governor DeSantis is under consideration for the vice presidential nomination.
As you know, the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, while it does not specifically prohibit two individuals who are legal residents of the same state from being on the ticket for president and vice president, it would, however, force while it does not specifically prohibit two individuals who are legal residents of the same state from being on the
Now, there's an argument that the party could nominate two individuals from Florida.
Let's say, hypothetically, President Donald Trump, uh, and, uh, Congressman Byron Donalds, both legal residents, uh, of Florida.
Uh, and, uh, they could certainly legally be on the ballot.
If the ticket won, uh, then theoretically, uh, before the Electoral College met, either President Trump, highly unlikely, or newly elected Vice President-elect Donald, hypothetically, could legally change their state of evidence to a different state and therefore avoid the 12th Amendment could legally change their state of evidence to a different state
I'm not an attorney, and I don't know if that would work, but I do know that explaining it to the voters would be extraordinarily difficult.
There are a number of potential candidates in Florida.
I don't really count DeSantis, but Senator Marco Rubio has been named.
General Michael Flynn has been mentioned.
The aforementioned Congressman Byron Donalds.
I don't believe any of them at this juncture Under serious consideration.
Donald's could be.
I don't know.
But you still have that Florida 12th Amendment issue.
All the way back when there was first discussion of DeSantis challenging Trump, I raised this 12th Amendment question to those who said, oh, well, look, we can avoid this clash of the titans by forming a Trump-DeSantis ticket.
I think the 12th Amendment of the Constitution pretty much prohibits that.
I'm going to do a quick shameless commercial pitch here, folks.
Troy, because believe it or not, there's a lot of people who have not read my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
This is a New York Times bestseller in which I use eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, deep Texas politics and a lot of documentation to make the case that it was LBJ at the helm of a plot that included the CIA, organized crime, the mob, big Texas oil,
the Secret Service, and the banking interests the Secret Service, and the banking interests to kill President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
You can get your very own copy of The Man Who Killed Kennedy by going to themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
There's a brief discussion there of the book, and when you order by going to themanwhokilledkennedy.com, you will not only get the paperback version that has three extra chapters, but it will be personally signed.
It can even be inscribed to you personally if you so request.
So, So again, TheManWhoKilledKennedy.com is my first book.
It is a New York Times bestseller.
I'm extraordinarily proud of it.
Okay, Troy, we have a little bit of time left.
We've gotten through the Trump-DeSantis meeting, which I think was the big political news of the weekend.
What else do you have on the boards?
Well, Roger, I think part of the cool thing about the Stone Zone and what we talk about here is that you not only have a history as a political icon, but also as a style icon, as a flashy dresser.
You're known for your style.
So over the weekend, we had the White House Correspondents Dinner.
And I took some pictures from the internet of people that had showed up to this event, and I wanted to get your comments on some of the outfits because some of them very interesting.
I know you've already commented on a few of these.
I think we can start with Fox News host Kennedy, who had this really interesting plaid dress.
Let me get your comments on this from the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Interesting dress from Kennedy, no?
Wow.
I must say that I don't love it.
I love Kennedy because she's a great libertarian, but I'm not sure about that dress.
We're actually going to cut to a quick commercial break here.
We're going to come back with the rest of our fashion show from the White House Correspondents' Dinner on the other side.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
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.
Sounds rolling.
- All three cameras, we're good.
- And the speed.
- 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 you.
And I can tell my story.
Former Hassell Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael planically guilty today to lie 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.
Why was he being so abusive?
Mike Flynn, hoping true and face like a person.
Welcome back, folks.
I'm Roger Stone.
We're here at Patriot.tv.
You can see us every day in the Stone Zone at 4 o'clock Central, 5 o'clock Eastern at Patriot.tv.
If you missed that, you could obviously go to the website at Patriot.TV.
We would urge you to sign up there for VIP membership, which will give you access to all of our archives of shows.
But if you do miss the show on any given day, you can see it again at 8 p.m. by going to rumble.com slash Roger Stone, where it will replay.
I urge you to catch it either at Patriot.TV, and you really should consider signing up there, or go to rumble.com slash Roger Stone, and you can follow us there.
Okay, Troy, we have just about four minutes left here.
Let's wrap this up.
What else do you have on your mind?
Fashion faux pas.
I saw John Fetterman.
Yeah, let's put that out.
It's really offensive.
The White House Correspondents Dinner is a self-congratulatory group of leftists.
The White House Correspondents Association gave CNN an award for their tough investigative reporting that allowed them to be 25 feet from my front door the morning of my arrest.
Now, there was no investigative reporting involved.
They got a tip.
They got a tip specifically from Prosecutor Andrew Weissman.
How do we know this?
Well, because at 6.06, I was arrested.
At 6.11, one of the CNN folks, Sarah Murray, sent my attorney, Grant Smith Esquire, A copy of my sealed indictment had no court markings or any time stamp on it, but it did have in the metadata tags the initials of the man who wrote it and therefore the man who leaked it in violation of law, Andrew Weissman.
Yet the CNN accepted an award from the White House Correspondents Association for their shrewd, deductive, investigative reporting.
that led them to send a camera crew to my home, arriving 15 minutes before the FBI strike force.
What a joke.
Anyway, go ahead.
And Roger, my favorite of the evening, of course, the former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
What did you get your comments on this?
Because I got to be honest, my jaw dropped a little bit when I saw this dress.
I'm not sure it's appropriate for a 45-year-old woman.
Let's put that up on the screen.
I mean, we want to show the redhead, Jen Psaki.
What is this?
I mean, Roger, is this just like a fake wedding dress or something?
What is that?
You know, look, I know that you are a big fan of Jen Psaki.
You know, in all honesty, given her coloring, the fact that she's extremely fair and that she's red-haired, a cream-colored dress is not really the right way to go.
The colors you wear have a lot to do with the coloring of your skin and the coloring of your hair.
So while I didn't find the dress itself to be extraordinarily Objectionable.
The color scheme is not right.
She would be much better in a vibrant color, say green, just for example.
All right.
There you go.
I think we have beaten this up.
Folks, just to remind you, I'm Roger Stone.
This is Troy Smith.
You can subscribe to Slingshot.News to see all of his political coverage.
It is some of the best cutting-edge political coverage in the country.
Uh, or you should also subscribe to stone zone.com stone zone.com, which is absolutely free.
Uh, it will, uh, not only bring you my latest print journalism, uh, you'll be able to see, uh, this show, uh, in real time at stone zone.com every day.
Uh, You will also be able to get to my 77 WABC radio show in New York.
And, of course, you can go to the store and get your copy of The Man Who Killed Kennedy or The Bush Crime Family or The Clinton's War Against Women or your Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong t-shirt.
All of that available at StoneZone.com.
And then lastly, I was with Mike Lindell last Thursday night at Mar-a-Lago for a great fundraising event for Mark Fincham, who's running for the state senate.
Mike Lindell is a great American, and we appreciate your support over at MyPillow.com.
And when you go to MyPillow.com, please remember to use promo code STONE.
Promo code STONE.
Whether it is the MyPillow dog beds, or the pet blankets, or the all-season slippers, or the MyPillow sandals, or the revolutionary new MyPillow 2.0 with the built-in cooling mechanism, or the bathrobes, which I believe are in a cloud closeout right now, the legendarily absorbent bath towels, the MyPillow mattresses in all sizes,
Their famous mattress toppers, their legendary bed sheets, all great, great products over at MyPillow.com.
Look, Mike Lindell is under siege because he's a truth teller, he's an advocate for free speech, and he's a major advocate for election integrity.
So here's an opportunity to help Mike Lindell, help the folks at MyPillow, his great company, and to help us here at The Stone Zone.
Go to MyPillow one more time and use promo code STONE when you do.
MyPillow.com and use promo code STONE.
Until tomorrow, I'm Roger Stone, speaking on behalf of myself and my co-host, Troy Smith of Slingshot.News.
God bless you 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