All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
01:00:40
Is Jack Smith's Appointment Even Legal? Trump Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Enters 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.
Well, the tsunami of lawfare that is being used against President Donald Trump, essentially election interference, continues to dominate the news.
While he should be out campaigning and raising money and meeting voters, he is instead locked in a Manhattan courtroom where he is involved in what, at worst, would be normally a business records case, and that assumes would be normally a business records case, and that assumes that the president is guilty of what he is accused of, which he vehemently denies.
At the same time, you have two federal prosecutions, one pertaining to his handling of documents proceeding in South Florida.
At the same time, you have the so-called January 6th prosecutions that are moving forward slowly in Washington, D.C.
Both of them seem to have been delayed by the assertion of President Trump of his due process rights.
He has, as I think most people who are following this know, raised the question of whether he in fact has immunity in his position as president or had immunity in his position as president pertaining to all of his official actions.
Joining me here to discuss all of this and give a broader interpretation of what's happening here, is one of the leading criminal defense attorneys in the country, a man who ably represented President Donald Trump in one of the two bogus impeachments against him.
I always say in introducing David Shone that he is that rare lawyer who not only has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, but he also has a strategic mind, not only in terms of legal but he also has a strategic mind, not only in terms of
But in terms of a broader understanding of the impact of media coverage of a given trial and public perceptions and the role they play in the overall adjudication of matters in our courts.
So we are privileged to have David Schoen join us today in the Stone Zone.
Thank you very much for having me.
David, the timing could not be better.
The entire past week has been dominated by these trials.
Let's start in New York.
There's a lot of ground to cover here, but I saw an excellent interview you gave to Mark Levin on Fox.
I liked it so much I put it up on my Rumble channel.
I really commend it to people.
It was excellent, but if you don't mind recapping us, You've essentially said that this New York prosecution in Manhattan by Alvin Bragg, that there's basically no crime.
You can't find a crime.
Explain what you mean by that.
Well, I mean, there's no crime and that they haven't properly charged any crime.
At most, what they've alleged here is, and this is problematic because we don't know exactly what they've alleged, but to just take it from the top, they charge under
New York criminal law, criminal practice law, 175.10, that it's a misdemeanor to falsify, make a false entry in business records, but it can become a felony if that was done with the intent to defraud, and that's required even for the misdemeanor, but intent to defraud, business entry was made, and with the intent to commit some other crime.
The reason I've said all along that the indictment in this case is absolutely constitutionally defective, and irreparably so, is because they don't ever tell you what that target crime was, what was the crime he allegedly intended to commit by making this allegedly false business record entry with the intent to defraud.
And so the judge's order denying a motion to dismiss in the case tees it up perfectly.
He says, well, after all, the government has given four possibilities for what it could be.
Those four possibilities require all four different defenses.
No defendant can be required to go to trial without knowing specifically what he or she is charged with.
You can't mount a defense otherwise.
If the target crime, for example, if the business record was allegedly falsified to commit an election fraud crime, that's one defense.
A failure to disclose an election contribution, that's another defense.
A tax crime, that's another defense.
Not only can't you mount a defense, But you don't even know what the elements, what the mens rea, the mindset would be that's required under the law to prove.
They have different mental requirements for each of the crimes.
So that's a fundamental problem.
But at the end of the day, and by the way, there's a recent news article out that says, oh, the prosecution has introduced another crime that it could have been in this case.
You don't have that while a trial is going on.
It takes a long time to prepare for a trial and to prepare the defenses, how to cross-examine what witnesses, It violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
But beyond all of that, in a roundabout way now, to get to your direct question, it doesn't charge a crime.
Because if, as it appears, their theory is that Donald Trump allegedly paid money through Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels to cover up her claim of having an affair that would be embarrassing, and for the purpose of not allowing the voters to know about it, that wouldn't be a crime.
And there's a real question whether even if it was mislabeled as a business entry, that would even be the misdemeanor.
But putting that aside, the focus here is on this.
Every politician takes steps to cover up or not let the public know about something either embarrassing or something that somebody can lie about and make embarrassing.
And by the way, if you want to take that theory and believe that spending money to either make you, the candidate, look good, You raised an excellent point.
people from thinking you look bad or make the other candidate look bad, then, of course, Hillary Clinton had to be prosecuted for the destruction of the emails and the server for paying Fusion GPS.
All of those kinds of opposition research would be illegal under this theory.
Anyway, it's not a crime.
You raise an excellent point.
Bill Clinton settled a lawsuit for $868,000 with Paula Jones to get her silence regarding his sexual assault of hers.
And of course, that was prior to his running for reelection.
So no crime was found there.
One of the things I think odd here is the U.S.
Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, not exactly Trump lovers, they examined all of these transactions They brought no action.
They could find no crime, presumably.
The Federal Election Commission, pursuant to a complaint, examined these transactions.
They also brought no action.
What's odd, though, is that the judge has limited Trump's lawyers from presenting the facts of those investigations.
Isn't that odd?
Yes.
What the judge specifically excluded at the prosecution's request Any evidence that the Federal Election Commission had reviewed the case and decided there was no case, and that the U.S.
Attorney's Office had reviewed the case and decided that there is no case.
What's going to have to come out, though, or is making reversible error, is if he denies facts concerning those underlying investigations to come out.
In other words, one of the reasons, clearly, that the feds didn't prosecute was the lack of credibility it found with Michael Cohen.
And one of the reasons it found a lack of credibility is because Bob Costello, who had been first chief deputy of the criminal division in that U.S. attorney's office, but then became Michael Cohen's lawyer, was called in to be interrogated by the Southern District.
And Michael Cohen waived his privilege.
Well, in that discussion, Bob Costello told the Southern District quite clearly that Michael Cohen was telling a completely different story now and that he, Bob Costello, as Michael Cohen's lawyer, told Michael Cohen that if he had anything whatsoever on Trump, this would be his get out of jail card.
Cohen had said he never wanted to spend a day in jail, according to Costello.
Costello said, give them Donald Trump if you have something on him.
And Costello says Cohen told him, there's nothing I can do.
Donald Trump had nothing to do with the Stormy Daniels thing, and I can't implicate him when he didn't do it.
And so those facts, if Michael Cohen testifies, then surely Bob Costello must be permitted to testify to these prior inconsistent statements that are completely material.
So we'll see how this plays out from an evidentiary standpoint.
But yeah, I mean, look, this Judge Merchant, who should never be on this case, whose disqualification is mandatory under the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Section 100.3E1D3, he must be disqualified because he has a daughter whose interest could substantially be affected, could substantially be affected by these proceedings.
We know already how much her firm is raised From opponents of President Trump and so on.
Anyway, this judge, every ruling he is able to make that goes against Donald Trump, it seems that he makes.
He should never have been on this case.
So, let me understand this.
Let's assume that Trump is unjustly found guilty for various reasons, a bias in the jury, the restrictions the judge puts on his defense, for whatever reason.
Obviously, you could appeal that on the basis of the fact that the judge should have recused himself, but since this is a political trial and this is all really about timing, in other words, it seems to me the critics of Donald Trump and those who are bringing these cases, they don't care if ultimately his convictions are reversed on appeal.
As long as that happens after the election.
In other words, their desire is to get to a trial, any trial, for any crime, anywhere, before the election, i.e.
election interference.
This particular case seems, and I'm not an attorney, I make that very clear up front, but this seems to be the weakest of the cases against him.
On the other hand, They do have the benefit of the Manhattan jury pool.
I mean, this is something I myself went through in D.C.
I had an all-Democrat jury.
Obviously, my case is still sealed.
I can only say so much.
Other than the fact that there were no Trump supporters on my jury, there were no military veterans on my jury.
We're no evangelical Christians on my jury.
They were politically homogeneous, and they were not Trump lovers, to say the least.
I always find it odd when people say vicious things about Trump in their social media postings, but then say in court, oh, but I can be objective in weighing the facts in this case.
So I think the president has that same problem.
Let's speak for a moment about the gag order.
There was a more limited gag order on President Trump in the so-called valuations case.
The valuations case, to remind people, is when the president was charged with, I guess, overvaluing his assets in applications to borrow money, where the banks, in fact, did their own appraisals and their own due diligence, decided to make the loans on the basis of their own due diligence.
Got paid back in full on time, in some cases even early, making $40 million in interest.
Yet Trump was tried under a law in New York State in which no one has ever previously been tried.
As you, among others, correctly pointed out, there was no victim.
But in that case, I think the president was pretty effectively able, even within the constraints of a limited gag order, to step out in the hall and tell the American people What's really going on here?
What is this really about?
Here, the president is far more restricted.
Yesterday, the judge basically said that fined him, not only for violating the gag order in defending himself, and also returning fire from Michael Cohn, who was actually on TikTok making money by attacking Donald Trump.
The judge said that he may be subjected to incarceratory punishments, a term I'd never heard before.
But essentially, I think the judge is saying that if Trump does it again, he's prepared to throw him in jail.
What do you think of that?
Yeah, that's what he's saying.
This judge is a bully.
The judge loves the limelight.
He's very insecure.
I've been before him before.
I find him to be a terrible judge and an incompetent judge and not very bright.
But beyond all that, he hates anything to do with Donald Trump.
And he, I think he thinks that he's a hero for those who are similarly politically aligned.
This has no business being a part of our process.
I believe that, you know, we talk all the time about the gag order violating the First Amendment.
I believe very strongly it violates the First and Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
I don't believe a defendant can fairly and adequately defend a case with a draconian gag order like this.
And I think it violates the public's independent right to a public trial and to no matters of public interest.
Surely if President Trump, as a defendant in the case, believes that the process is unfair and that the judge is biased, he must be entitled to speak about that, whether or not he's a presidential candidate.
The fact that he's a presidential candidate And a theory of defense is that this is literally election interference, that this is intended to sideline him from the election, makes it even more importantly, a matter of public interest that he must be permitted to speak about.
Now listen, most lawyers tell their clients, don't malign the judge, don't speak badly about him, and so on, because they're worried about the judge ruling against them.
This judge has made it clear he's gonna rule against them at every opportunity.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that he intends to be fair except for empty words so declaring, but not followed up by action.
And therefore, in this case, President Trump is simply telling the truth when he talks about the bias the judge appears to have against him and how unfair the process is, and that he believes no crime is with charge, and he ought to be entitled to speak about his own mens rea with respect to the charges against him.
This all is beyond the fact that he must be entitled to speak to rebut comments that are made against him, and the indictment in the case is something that everybody has a copy of if they want to, They can download it readily.
He ought to be able to publicly declare his opposition to it, to the kinds of charges brought here, and to what he believes is the reason behind this prosecution.
A political reason, a reason shared, a feeling shared by tens or more millions of people around this country.
This is a matter of public interest.
The gag order is against the public interest.
And to say he'll be treated like any other defendant, number one, he's not being treated like any other defendant.
Number two, he shouldn't be, quite frankly, because there is a national interest in the election and hearing about matters of public interest.
You know, you said earlier, Roger, and you're absolutely right, they don't really care if they win this on appeal.
You know, they'd rather win it on appeal.
But they'd rather get the conviction now.
They'd rather put this salacious testimony out now.
But what they really love is making him sit in a chair in the courtroom and having to be subjected to a judge like this, the way he speaks to him, and not be able to be out there talking about public issues at a time when this country is in chaos.
Yeah, I always found it interesting that in the Georgia case, both the judge and the prosecutor repeatedly referred to him as Mr. Trump, as opposed to President Trump, the title that he's entitled to.
Folks, if you're just tuning in, this is the Stone Zone.
I'm talking to criminal defense lawyer David Schoen.
I've learned from him that there's a huge difference between an experienced criminal defense lawyer and a former federal prosecutor.
They are not the same thing.
We're going to go to a quick commercial break and we'll be right back.
Glutathine.
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.
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.
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 as well as your privacy and your peace of mind.
So call or text for your free report, "The Secret War on Cash," and make sure to mention, Pat Boone sent ya. - Welcome back, folks. Pat Boone sent ya. - Welcome back, folks.
If you're just tuning in, This is The Stone Zone, and I'm interviewing criminal defense attorney David Shone, who is, to my mind, one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country.
And we're privileged to have you with us today, David.
Let's continue talking about the tsunami of lawfare being waged against President Donald Trump.
The gag order that he is subjected to is all too familiar to me.
In my case, I was gagged by a federal judge, unable to defend myself.
Her argument was that my being able to speak freely might taint the jury pool in D.C.
Not to say that, say, CNN or Washington Post wasn't tainting the jury pool every single day.
But then, strangely enough, she kept the gag order in place after I was convicted and right up until the time that I was to be incarcerated.
I don't know how the jury pool could have been tainted at that period since they'd already rendered their decision.
I guess, however, that there is no process here to appeal the gag order.
Prior to the trial going forward, I'm not really certain how that works.
Yeah, they have asked the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division, to address it.
They certainly did in the Ngoron case, and the court didn't touch it.
It's very difficult to get a reversal based on it, but I think that's because we devalue, in our system, the right to a public trial and fail to recognize the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that are implicated Especially in these days of social media.
You know, if, in this case, President Trump is not allowed to discuss anything about the case, the parties, the judge, etc., and he's not allowed to direct anyone else to do it, have anyone do it on his behalf, nor are the lawyers.
I believe that you miss a lot of information that way, through social media, for example.
You know, people write in, call in, when they know something's an issue, and they give information that wasn't previously known.
You lose all of that when you have a gag order, and there are nuances about this case that President Trump ought to be able to speak about, things that he knows about Michael Cohen.
It is true, you know, you want a jury to hear the case from the evidence, but it's unrealistic to think in a case like this that that's the only source they're going to have, especially when you have key witnesses in the case like Michael Cohen, who now it surfaces, by the way, not only is he apparently trying to raise money from his endeavors, but He also has been going over the testimony in the case, and now he says that he's going to stop that and delete social media posts about it and so on.
I think the taint is already in on that one.
Yeah, I agree with you regarding this, Judge.
First of all, the judge gave a contribution to Biden's presidential campaign.
I believe it was only $15, but I think that's immaterial.
It is actually a Violation of the judicial canon of ethics, judges are not supposed to give political contributions.
I thought the judge should recuse himself on that basis alone.
But then we learned through the absolutely accurate investigative reporting of Laura Loomer that the judge's adult daughter is a, as you mentioned, a Democrat political fundraising consultant.
Who has raised millions of dollars specifically for the Biden-Harris campaign using this trial as her pitch, as her appeal.
So the judge has a direct financial interest, or I should say his daughter has a direct financial interest, in the case being overseen by her father.
Absolutely outrageous.
Let's move, if we can, to the Documents case in Florida, the special counsel seems to be extraordinarily upset that this case got appointed to an honest judge, got appointed to a judge who believes in the rule of law, and particularly to a judge who believes in the public's right to know.
It's amazing to me the way special counsel Smith wants to try this case essentially in secret.
These redactions that she ordered removed have shown some extraordinary things, no?
Yeah.
It's shocking and offensive the way this judge, Eileen Cannon, has been attacked in the media.
First of all, her background is one that should be celebrated by every American.
Daughter of immigrants, came up through fine schools, fine clerkship, worked as a federal prosecutor for years.
She's just trying to call it straight.
She's not putting up with the stuff from Jack Smith that they're willing to put up with in D.C.
Her default is a public right to know, as you mentioned, and that's the way the law provides.
Jack Smith's default is he'd like to keep everything secret.
As you know, he conducted proceedings before a grand jury in D.C.
for this Florida case.
I think the case ought to be dismissed from the taint for the misuse of Evan Corcoran's emails.
I think the judge misused the crime fraud Exception to the attorney-client privilege, Judge Howell in D.C.
I think there are a number of reasons, but Judge Cannon is calling it straight.
She wants a fair trial, if it's going to go to trial, and she certainly has not ruled with President Trump straight across the board by any means in this case.
And she has said, with respect to the Presidential Records Act, which is directly relevant to the case, notwithstanding what Jack Smith and his team have said, She has said that she's not, isn't inclined to dismiss it based on a president's prerogative under the Presidential Records Act, but that she does think, she has indicated at least, that she thinks it's going to be relevant, certainly to the mens rea in the case.
In other words, if President Trump believed, as he was told by respected advisors, that he has the right under the Presidential Records Act, consistent with an opinion from Judge Amy Berman Jackson in D.C., That only the Chief Executive, the President, has the right to designate whether documents are personal or presidential.
If he had that right, and he designated these documents, and believed he had the right to take them, then he hasn't committed a crime, because that would not violate the state of mind required to commit the crimes charged in this case.
So, she's just calling it straight, and she wants it to play out.
I thought she made a brilliant move when she asked the parties to produce to her Their proposed jury instructions in the case.
Many lawyers start their preparation of a case with jury instructions because they lay out the elements of the crime.
I happen to start my preparation with cross-examination, but it's a legitimate basis to start with jury instructions.
And the judge asks, though, I want to see what exactly you're talking about that you have in mind for the role of the Presidential Records Act and the state of mind required in this case.
It's interesting that Judge Cannon's critics, their principal criticism is, of course, that she was appointed by Donald Trump.
But both myself, Paul Manafort, and General Flynn all went to trial in front of judges appointed by Barack Obama, but it was in Barack Obama's office that the Russian collusion hoax was born, and the false narrative under which we were prosecuted Was invented.
No one objected to the fact that that judge had been appointed by President Obama.
Once again, the double standard of justice.
David, switching now to the question of presidential immunity, just to review for our viewers, This issue was raised at the trial court level in D.C.
in front of Judge Chutkin.
She ruled that the president's constitutionally mandated immunity did not apply, that he had no immunity.
The president's lawyers then went to appeal that to the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
At that point, the special counsel wanted to leapfrog the appeals court and take the question directly To the Supreme Court, which I think is where he revealed his hand, his desire for a speedy trial as opposed to a just trial or a fair trial.
That was rejected by the Supreme Court, who insisted that they must first duke this out in the Court of Appeals.
Trump did appeal the immunity ruling of the trial court judge in the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
They ruled against him.
That was not at all surprising.
The matter then went to the Supreme Court.
Now, in the two Supreme Court hearings, I have been surprised that two different justices have both asked the president's lawyers if they intended to raise the question of the legitimacy I have been surprised that two different justices have both asked the president's lawyers if they intended to raise the question of the legitimacy and legality of Jack Smith's appointment
Uh, which the president's lawyers have not done in DC.
They did preserve this issue at the very last minute, uh, in Florida, uh, in the documents case, but they have not raised it.
First of all, can you explain to us the appointments cause?
What is the, what is the argument?
Uh, and then why, in your opinion, do you think they have not raised this?
Right.
Okay.
Every office like this, there has to be some statutory authority.
There is no statutory authority for a special counsel in the role like Jack Smith's role is, like Robert Mueller's role was.
The Appointments Clause is found in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the President of the United States the exclusive right to make the appointment of superior officers with the confirmation process, you know, with the confirmation process that goes before the Senate.
In this case, there is no statutory authority for the appointment of a Jack Smith to have this kind of authority, the kind of authority that a U.S.
attorney has, when we know a U.S.
attorney has to be confirmed by, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
In this case, the President had no role in this, the Attorney General picked Jack Smith, and therefore it violates the Appointments Clause and is unconstitutional.
Now, don't take my word for it, because two scholars, well-respected scholars, Stephen Calabrese and Gary Lawson, two law professors, written an extensive article in the Notre Dame Law Review about this issue.
They wrote it about the Robert Mueller appointment, but it applies with equal or greater force to the Jack Smith appointment.
Jack Smith was a private citizen, but then Merrick Garland just elevated into this role.
There is no legitimate constitutional basis for that.
So what happened is, in this case, originally in the U.S.
Court of Appeals, when the immunity appeal was taken up, Ed Meese, former Attorney General, wrote an amicus brief along with Calabresi, Professor Calabresi, and in it, they raised this issue squarely.
And they made a compelling argument to the court, D.C.
Court of, U.S.
Court of Appeals, to the D.C.
Circuit, as to why Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
The justices to, the judges of the D.C.
Circuit took the unusual step.
I've only happened once in dozens and dozens of cases I've argued in U.S.
Courts of Appeals.
I've only had it happen once, maybe twice, that the Court of Appeals has actually sent a letter out asking for a specific issue to be addressed.
In this case, the judges of the court sent out a letter before the oral argument that they were interested in the positions of the amicus, and they wanted that to be addressed.
When the oral argument transpired and the question came up to President Trump's lawyers about their position on this submission, on this question of the unconstitutionality of Jack Smith's appointment, his lawyer, Mr. Sauer, simply answered, That they hadn't raised that issue.
And that was it.
I found it, for me at least, concerning, because when you have a court clearly interested in the issues, you want to be able to address those issues.
That's an issue that, in my view, had to be preserved.
And I will tell you that I was given an assurance earlier on, because I made sure to check into this from the beginning of this case.
It was an issue I stressed.
I was assured that it was preserved, but it clearly wasn't.
And so what you then allude to is, in the United States Supreme Court, again, Justice Jackson asked the question, what's the Trump team position on the constitutionality of the appointment of Jack Smith?
And Mr. Sauer again had to answer that that issue was not raised in this case.
Now, this time, having learned from the first argument, apparently, he said, but the issue was raised in the Florida prosecution.
And by the way, we firmly agree with Attorney General Meese's submission on this case that the The problem is they never raised it in this case.
So, some might argue, oh, well, you know, they made a strategic decision because there's a case from the D.C.
Circuit called the In Re Grand Jury Investigation from 2019, in which the D.C.
Circuit gave short shrift to this argument.
But that decision was out there.
Everyone knew it.
Calabresi and Lawson address it in their article, in their law review article.
And you might get the same result from the D.C.
Circuit.
But now, how does it look?
When this is a case that went up to the Supreme Court and to not have that issue preserved, will they get another chance to have the Supreme Court decide it?
It may be they get a different decision from the D.C.
Circuit in the 11th Circuit if it comes up, but here's a chance, but they may not.
The 11th Circuit might say, well, you know, we're going to follow what the D.C.
Circuit case says, and then it doesn't go up to the Supreme Court.
You know now that Supreme Court justices are interested in this issue.
To me, it's very unfortunate that it wasn't raised in the D.C.
case.
Yeah, I could understand not wanting to raise it, understanding that the D.C.
Appeals Court has ruled not once but twice on this issue.
Incorrectly, in my opinion.
Wrongly decided, I think is the way you guys would say it.
But this was not the D.C.
Appeals Court.
This was the Supreme Court.
This issue, this argument, should the court ever side with Trump, that Jack Smith's appointment was illegal because he was I'd like to raise one other issue very briefly about the immunity argument that I disagree with respectfully.
his appointment would knock out both the documents case and the January 6th case.
So I would think that you would want this issue before the Supreme Court.
It may not survive.
I'd like to raise one other issue very briefly about the immunity argument that I disagree with respectfully.
There was a reporte that transpired between one of the justices and Mr. Sauer, in which Mr. Sauer was asked to concede that certain acts charged in alleged in the indictment in D.C., were private acts and not official acts.
Now that's relevant because in my view, what the court should and will come up with is a rejection of the D.C.
Circuit's categorical denial of immunity, but something that looks like the framework in the case Nixon versus Fitzgerald, a civil case that decided that a president or former president cannot be made to be civilly liable For any action taken while in office that was within the outer perimeter of the authority of that office, an official act.
I think the courts could and should and will come up with something similar to that for the criminal liability.
A president must be able to act within his official capacity without having to worry about whether someone down the road is going to consider some military action or other official action, some action directed toward election integrity, as having, as having, making him face criminal liability.
Because I think those are within the quintessential official acts doctrine.
What happened then was, though, Mr. Sauer answered that certain of the allegations made, that is, President Trump seeking the advice of a private attorney, for example, on what his options were, and about the use of a slate of alternate electors, he conceded that those would be considered private action.
And when he was advocating one of his own positions, he said, well, that's the position we're taking.
I think we needed to have different kind of advocacy than that.
I would not concede that consulting with a private attorney or the idea of alternative electors was private action.
Whether it's right or wrong, it's still within the realm of official action.
The Office of Legal Counsel itself has said consulting with someone outside the government could be the president of Texaco.
Consulting with that kind of person on a decision that's ordinarily a presidential type decision, an Official Act decision, Is within the executive privilege, for example.
And therefore, it's considered an official act.
I think by conceding that certain things were private actions, you virtually guarantee a trial now.
You cannot have a decision that the entire prosecution is barred by immunity if you're conceding as a defendant that some of the allegations were for private actions.
And I worry how it plays out in front of the jury, because now they're locked into a position And so they can't argue that the action taken and alleged was an official action, if this were to be a framework that puts such questions to a jury.
That's another possibility the Supreme Court could come up with.
They still have open to them that his mens rea, his intent, was to not violate the law here, that he understood and believed that what he was doing was not wrongful in any way, not knowingly violation of the law.
But anyway, look, these are differences, but to me, that was a major, major mistake.
All right.
I'm afraid we have to leave it there.
Let me thank our guest, David Shum, criminal defense attorney, for joining us today with this great analysis of this tsunami of lawfare against President Donald Trump.
Thank you, David, and we'll be right back after this commercial message.
Thank you very much.
Sounds rolling.
- All three cameras, we're good.
- And your 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 them.
And I can tell my story.
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.
He's a brilliant military career, serving 33 years.
Why was he being so abusive?
Mike Flynn told the truth and faced life in prison.
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 Welcome back, folks.
I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are in the Stone Zone.
I want to remind you, you can see us every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern, pardon me, 4 p.m.
Central, 5 p.m.
Eastern at patriot.tv, patriot.tv.
You can also, if you happen to miss that, see us later that evening at 8 o'clock Eastern, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
That's at rumble.com slash rogerstone.
If you want to see us earlier in the day, folks, if you want to get the cutting news, patriot.tv is the place to be.
Joining me now is my regular co-host, the editor-in-chief of slingshot.news.
Troy Smith joins me in the Stone Zone.
Roger, as always, it's an honor to be here, and we have a lot of news to get into today, a lot of stuff I'm very interested to hear your opinion on.
I want to start off with a video that is making its rounds on Twitter of Nancy Pelosi actually getting really angry and scolding an MSNBC reporter, I believe it's Katie Tur, for asking her to clarify a point and really pointing out something.
Now, for all those at home that don't understand the Democrat talking point, the Democrats routinely repeat the false point that President Trump actually lost jobs as a president, that during Trump's presidency there was no jobs created, we actually lost jobs.
They make that claim because Trump's presidency ended during the COVID-19 pandemic.
So, all of the jobs that had left during the pandemic that came back, the Democrats used that to say, well, Trump didn't actually create jobs.
We know for a fact that Trump actually contributed to possibly the best time for job creation in the history of the United States when he was president prior to the pandemic.
The Democrats know this, and even Katie Tur of MSNBC points this out.
Pelosi gets enraged, and she actually has a, I'd call it a vodka freakout on air, so let's see that clip.
And Joe Biden is doing that.
Created 9 million jobs in his term in office.
Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president.
So we just have to make sure people know.
That was a global pandemic.
He had the worst record of any president.
We've had other concerns in our country.
If you want to be an apologist for Donald Trump, that may be your role.
But it ain't mine.
I don't think that anybody can accuse me of that.
Wow.
Calling an MSNBC talking head who regularly trashes Donald Trump and distorts the truth about him an apologist for him is extraordinary.
First of all, the 9 million job figure for Joe Biden As the economist Barry Habib said on this show, as well as on my 77 WABC radio show, the vast majority of those are part-time jobs.
And Trump's job creation record set records up until, of course, the pandemic, in which Trump was essentially forced To destroy his signature accomplishment, that being the most robust economy in American history.
But, you know, Nancy Pelosi, we have this great video we use a lot on her, where she lays out the wrap-up smear.
She's proud of it.
You see, here's how it works.
You take something that's false.
You feed it to one of your friends in the fake news media.
They publish it.
Then you point to that story as the proof that whatever BS you're pushing is true.
And then you merchandise it, her words.
In other words, you have many people out there pointing to this publication.
And that's how the smear works.
So look, Nancy Pelosi is long past her due date.
I'm kind of surprised that When she left as Speaker, she didn't choose to leave the House, but I guess those opportunities for inside trading are just too great to pass up.
Well, Roger, that is absolutely the case.
And as we know, the COVID-19 pandemic, as you said there, it forced Trump to actually get rid of his marquee accomplishment, the top thing that he touted throughout his presidency.
And I think his most lasting contribution, really, is what he did with the economy.
They really forced him with the COVID-19 pandemic to take that away.
And what they also did was they used a lot of mechanisms put in by health officials and things like that to kind of push mail-in ballots and absentee ballots.
And we're well aware of this as we've had people on the show to discuss this.
We have a headline, Roger, that's broken the last couple days.
I want them to put it up on the screen now.
Talking about a U.S.
bird flu outbreak.
Now, they're pushing this and they're saying, well, you know, there's going to be a new bird flu.
They're saying that it's infecting chickens and cattle.
The White House was asked about this yesterday during the press briefing.
And I wanted to get your thoughts, Roger.
Do you think that there's going to be an effort with this bird flu or possibly another pathogen to put in those restrictions again and possibly influence the 2024 election with another pandemic?
Look, I think it is entirely possible.
The implacable foes of Donald Trump, the permanent government in place, call them the military-industrial complex, call them the deep state, call them the political establishment, call them whatever you want.
It is essentially a uniparty, fake news media cabal of elitists.
I think that they're prepared to do virtually anything necessary to stop Donald Trump from returning to the White House.
This perversion of our criminal justice system, this contorting of the prosecutorial function to manufacture crimes against Donald Trump, not in the year after his presidency, not in the two years after his presidency, not in the three years after his presidency, but four years after his presidency, is extraordinary.
The timing itself reveals the political motivation of it.
Special Counsel Jack Smith's efforts to expedite the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity so that he could have a trial before the election, as opposed to being more concerned about due process and getting it right, reveals that this is all about timing.
So, another pandemic?
Certainly a possibility.
The Biden administration will use any of the governmental levels of power For political purposes to stop Donald Trump.
I think as they look at these poll numbers, as we do, they have to be apoplectic.
I mean, they have to be near hysterical because nothing they have thrown at Trump has worked.
He continues to have a marginal lead in both the swing states and nationally.
Don't expect that to change.
Is he home free?
Not by any means.
Is this in the bag?
Nothing is in the bag.
We have a long way to go between now and Election Day.
Numerous obstacles have been placed in his way in terms of the legal cases against him, which we discussed here fully today.
And then we still have not yet even gotten to the question of whether we're going to have a free Fair, honest, transparent election.
In this current atmosphere, if you even ask that question, if you simply ask that question, not an assertion, but just a question, you will be banned forever on YouTube, for example.
You are not allowed to raise these questions on Facebook or on Instagram or any of these other outlets.
This is why I salute Elon Musk.
I'm proud to be back on Twitter, now known as X. Is it perfect?
No, it's not perfect.
Is it good?
It's very good in terms of being able to say within reason what it is you wish to say.
I don't think you should be able to threaten violence against people, although people threaten to kill me and my family all the time on Twitter.
They don't seem to be ever held accountable for that.
That said, Yes, I think another pandemic is a very real possibility.
I would not rule anything out.
People say I'm being an alarmist, but this includes assassination.
Yes, I pray for the safety of our president and his family every single day.
I've written a book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, the case against LBJ.
We could throw that up, as a matter of fact, if you want to read about how they killed one president and how various elements of government were involved in an overall plot that included Vice President Lyndon Johnson at the helm, but also the Central Intelligence if you want to read about how they killed one president and how various elements of government were involved in an
I used eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics to make the compelling case that LBJ and the federal government, elements of the federal government, had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill John Kennedy.
You can get that book by going to themanwhokillkennedy.com, themanwhokillkennedy.com.
If you order today, we will get it out the door with a personal inscription.
This, by the way, is the paperback version.
It has three additional chapters.
So if you're interested in history and you're also interested in the lengths to which the deep state Or those in control will go to control government.
This book, I think you will find fascinating.
Troy, continue.
Well, Roger, one of the great myths or lies that the Democrats have pushed is the lie surrounding January 6th, and that lie revolves around the idea that President Donald Trump and his supporters are violent and that they want violence, even though you and many others went to the Capitol, or I'm sorry, went to Washington, D.C., the days before and said, no violence, no violence.
We had the speech.
We've played it many times.
here, and many others have also, you know, been posted videos of themselves saying no violence on January 6th, yet the left takes the narrative and repeats it over and over again, even though it's completely false.
And I think many times when that's the case, Roger, when the left is pointing out something on the right that isn't there, many times it's a reflection of their own actions.
And I think this violent rhetoric, this idea that Trump wants a bloodbath, they're hanging on every word that the president says to try to create a false narrative that he is violent when it is actually them, themselves, Biden, Waters, Pelosi, that have actually called for violence in the past.
We have a short clip of Democrats calling for violence over the last several years.
I want to get your comment on this because to me, it looks like Alinsky 101 here.
Press always asks me, don't I wish I were debating him?
No, I wish you were in high school.
I could take him behind the gym.
That's what I wish.
I said, no.
I said, if we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.
I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.
Maybe there will be.
That you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.
If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
And you push back on them!
And you tell them they're not welcome!
You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.
Enemies of the state.
Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
President Walker, how do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?
When they go low, we kick them.
They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.
Yes!
I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
Please, get up in the face of some Congress people!
What a stupid son of a bitch.
There's no place for political violence in America!
Excellent find, Troy.
We're going to go to a quick commercial break and then we'll come back for the closing comments here.
at the Stone Zone.
A lot of people are having great success with a weight management program with Bellatrip, but it's just a tool.
In terms of ingredients, Chrom-X 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.
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.
Welcome back, folks.
If you're just tuning in, I'm Roger Stone.
This is The Stone Zone here at Patriot.TV.
And I'm here with my co-host, Troy Smith, the editor-in-chief, actually, of Slingshot.News.
Now, one of the things we ask you to do in every show is please go to StoneZone.com, StoneZone.com, you see right there on the screen, and subscribe.
It's absolutely free, but that way you'll be able to see not only our daily show, but you'll also be able to see things I have written or important articles that I have curated from other places, including Slingshot.com, that I think the mainstream including Slingshot.com, that I think the mainstream media is not giving enough coverage to.
You can also, of course, go to my 77 WABC radio show there on the site.
Go to my 77 WABC radio show there on the site.
And, of course, you can go to the store where you can buy all of my books, including The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ, New York Times bestseller, or my book Stone's Rules with an introduction by Tucker Carlson, talking to you about the things that I have learned in life in talking to you about the things that I have learned in life in Also ask you to subscribe to Slingshot.News,
because while Troy is doing some really cutting-edge investigative reporting, not just on politics, but on social issues and cultural issues, it is also free. So please go to Slingshot.News. We have just about three minutes to go here.
Troy, final comments from you.
Well, Roger, you know, this morning I got, I think we all saw the news that legendary American guitarist Dwayne Eddy passed away.
And I see a, I was seeing clips of Dwayne Eddy playing on Letterman and Johnny Carson and so many different shows.
And, you know, I think when we look back at the way things used to be and we look at the way that people used to be cutting edge.
I mean, Dwayne Eddy, here's a guy that took the electric guitar and made it into a marquee.
He made guitar playing really something in America that was like the center point of a musical act.
And at that point, that was really not something that was done that often.
So when we're looking at people like Dwayne Eddy, we want to say rest in peace to him.
But we also want to say for all of you out there, cut your own path.
You know, we can we can we don't have to go to a university where there's pro Hamas protesters to to to get by in life.
We can actually make our own lives.
We can actually build our own paths and cut our own path forward.
And I think that's the American way.
That's the American dream.
It's what Make America Great Again is all about.
And through that individualism, Roger, I think that's how we rebuild the country.
It's not by going to the liberals in the university systems and asking, begging for their approval.
It's cutting our own path.
And Dwayne Eddy is a prime example of that.
So rest in peace to him.
And I think we're all going to be listening to Rebel Rouser today at some point.
You know, Troy, I remember something John Sears, who was Ronald Reagan's campaign manager, once told me in trying to understand American voters.
He said, we are Americans.
We believe we can do anything we put our minds to.
I think that puts it almost perfectly.
All right, we're done for today, unfortunately.
I want to thank my co-host, Troy Smith, at Slingshot.News.
I'm Roger Stone.
You have been in the Stone Zone.
Please, folks, remember to go to Rumble.com slash Roger Stone and follow us there.
But you can see us every day at 4 o'clock Central, 5 o'clock Eastern at Patriot.TV.
And if unfortunately you missed that, well, you could catch us later that day at Rumble.
In the meantime, until tomorrow, 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