Ex-CIA Official Predicts Another Attempt On Trump's Life | The StoneZONE w/ Roger Stone
|
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.
You may recall that after I went through the Soviet-style show trial in Washington, D.C., Which I was charged with lying to Congress in my voluntary testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, despite the fact that any misstatement I made had no material relevance to any underlying crime because, well, there was no Russian collusion.
Nor was there any collaboration between me or the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.
And the government never produced any evidence to the contrary.
Nonetheless, I was convicted in a rigged trial, and then the four prosecutors in my case resigned when they said that they were unduly politically pressured by their superiors at the Department of Justice to give me a lenient and then the four prosecutors in my case resigned when they In fact, they were asking for seven to nine years, and their sentencing memo specifically accused me of, quote,
interference in the election on behalf of a foreign power, which of course I was not charged interference in the election on behalf of a foreign power, which of course I was not charged nor convicted The That's not true either.
Anyway, the Inspector General of the Justice Department launched an investigation into my sentencing based on the demands of various Democrats, including Chuck Schumer.
Yesterday, the report was published, and it concluded That there was no undue political pressure by the top echelon of the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Bill Barr, on the four prosecutors in my case.
So once again, I have been vindicated.
My guest today, Larry Johnson, knows perhaps more about the Russian collusion hoax than many people in America.
He is a former CIA officer and a noted author and journalist who has covered the deep state, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the ongoing battle going on in America.
Where we have a ruling elite that were elected by no one.
He is a man for whom I have enormous respect.
Larry Johnson, now formerly of the CIA, joins us on the Stone Zone.
Thanks, Roger.
Pleasure to be with you.
Thank you so much.
I cut your biography short there because I had a little computer failure.
But give us, give folks just a, just a brief on, you know, your background and your experience, if you would.
Well, let me first say that I first met Roger Stone when I was teaching at American University in the Washington Semester Program, and you came and addressed a class, I think Tom Snitch was the professor, that you came and spoke.
So that was 44 years ago.
So yeah, time flies.
My time, four years with the CIA, four years with State Department Counterterrorism, 24 years doing consulting work that included scripting terrorism exercises for military special operations forces, as well as conducting overseas money laundering investigations.
What's made my, you know, given me sort of particularly unique insights is I've worked with the CIA on both the operations and analysis side.
I've worked with the FBI, was involved in helping support them in their investigation of Pan Am 103.
I've worked with all transportation security, both aviation and maritime.
I've had access and worked with the National Security Agency.
And then I've worked with the military's most elite forces and been involved with highly classified programs.
I know how the game's played.
I'm one of those individuals with a unique insight to it.
Average person gets the silo effect.
You know, they're only on one cone.
They work only with the FBI or only with the Secret Service.
I've been able to, I cover a broad area and that I think has helped me understand the abuse of power that was taking place when they went after you and more importantly were going after Donald Trump.
I mean, you were You were just someone who was in the way.
Their real goal was to destroy Donald Trump.
Yeah, you're absolutely right about that.
Looking back at it, sometimes I have to pinch myself because it's a nightmare.
Actually, as yesterday's news demonstrates, it never really ends.
I read the Inspector General's report.
It absolutely concluded that there was no pressure by Bill Barr or anyone at the upper epsilons of DOJ on the four prosecutors in my case.
One of the four prosecutors, however, testified for the House Judiciary Committee saying the opposite.
In other words, he perjured himself.
He lied before Congress, being guilty of the exact same crime that they accused me of.
Now, they tried to clean that up in the report.
You know, I don't expect the Justice Department to ever discipline any of their own.
But what's most interesting is I read a Reuters report this morning, and I have to conclude that the reporter who wrote it never actually read the report, because his headline was, Top DOJ Officials Interceded to Soften Stone's Sentence.
Not even remotely accurate.
Welcome to the fake news.
I almost don't know where to start, but I guess the place we should start most logically is with the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Every single day we seem to learn new facts about that.
Stunning that the FBI director, Christopher Wray, testified yesterday that the man they accuse of doing this, Thomas Matthew Brooks, actually went online to study Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged murder of John F. Kennedy and what the distance was between where the shooter, at least, was and Kennedy.
Previously, of course, they had told us that all of Mr. Crook's background and anything on him on the Internet had been scrubbed.
So you kind of wonder how that's possible.
We also, I think, definitively have learned that the That the Secret Service, and therefore the local and state police, were aware of the presence of Mr. Crooks for 62 minutes.
They knew he had a gun.
They had seen him use a rangefinder.
Yet they never informed President Trump of this danger, nor did they evacuate him.
What are your thoughts on this?
So let me just explain my bona fides to address some of this.
When I was at State, one of my responsibilities was to oversee the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Training Program, which meant that we helped, we created and oversaw the curriculum, what was taught to foreign police.
One of those was executive protection.
Plus, I'd worked with the former head of Ronald Reagan's Secret Service team, and we did some security assessments of airports and one school where there was a dignitary.
So, I have some basic knowledge of this, but also friends in the community.
I said initially, this is one of the most appalling displays of incompetence By the Secret Service, or this was something darker.
This was part of a plot.
I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt of thinking that they were just incompetent.
Now, after almost two weeks, we know that it was not incompetence.
This was a planned, organized plot.
This Crooks kid was, he was part of it.
I'm not exactly sure how he was used.
I'm pretty confident he's the one that fired the shots, despite the other things that are being said.
But like that story that they put out, oh, he was studying Lee Harvey Oswald.
You know, I'm skeptical of that.
I think that they're trying to paint him as this lone wolf, just like Lee Harvey Oswald.
And that's why they put the story out.
I do not trust anything.
The FBI says anymore, after what we've seen, how they've conducted themselves.
And similarly with the Secret Service, where it's become politicized.
Because when you total up what was not done to protect Donald Trump, it's clear that this wasn't just a routine oversight.
You know, the first task was to conduct the proper advance work, Which means you've got a team of Secret Service agents that go out and they look at the venue and they figure out everything they're going to need to do to prevent anybody from being able to get a weapon anywhere close to Donald Trump.
And that includes the outside perimeter, which at a minimum they should have extended it to 500 yards and possibly out to a thousand yards.
It's always a function of what's out there and about, and particularly that area where the shooter was on top of the roof.
That had to be secured and was not.
The second thing that's come out, and apparently Christopher Wray suggested this in his testimony yesterday, was that the counter-sniper teams for Secret Service didn't have permission to fire At the 140-yard target outside the perimeter.
Well, that's just wrong.
The Secret Service is one of the few organizations where their standing rules of engagement are that a counter-sniper team, if they spot somebody that's within their area and that has a weapon, they can take him out and kill him.
So, you've got that.
You've got the fact that there was advanced warnings about this suspicious character.
And again, Secret Service protocol.
Don't let the person you're protecting on stage until you resolve that issue.
They let Trump go on stage.
So it was just—and then on top of it, they pulled Trump's regular Secret Service detail from that day, sent them reportedly on vacation, or maybe deployed them to work for Joe Biden.
But the people that they put in charge, my understanding is that the Secret Service Director of the Pittsburgh office, he's a cybercrime guy.
That's his background.
You know, financial crime, cybercrime.
He doesn't know anything about protective details, and yet they put him in charge?
Just because you've reached a certain level in terms of career status in the Secret Service, doesn't mean that you actually know what you're doing with that particular case.
So, when you pile all that together, coupled with—this took place two days before the Republican National Convention— And CNN, who has not covered, I don't remember the last time they did live coverage of a Trump rally, oh they decided to show up and cover the Trump rally that day.
Huh, that's an interesting coincidence.
And the New York Times reporter, photographer, who takes a picture of the, gets a picture of the bullet, he decides to set his camera up for high-speed photography.
Who does that at an event like a rally?
So, Put all that together, it stinks.
Yeah, there seems to be more questions than there are answers.
Senator Ron Johnson seemed to indicate after a government briefing that he believed there may have been more than one shooter, maybe as many as two shooters.
I've seen, but I'm hardly expert at, acoustical analysis that also seems to point to the possibility of more than one shooter.
Do you, based on what you have seen, do you have an opinion on that?
Yeah, so the acoustical evidence shows that there were two, maybe three different guns fired.
Well, yeah, duh, you've got crooks firing, you've got at least one Secret Service counter-sniper team firing, and then a local police counter-sniper team firing.
So that would account for three different types of guns.
What I look for is who got shot.
Donald Trump got shot.
There was, uh, Cory Campantori was shot in the head and killed, and two other individuals.
When you look at their physical locations of where they were, they were all in alignment with where Crooks was.
So, uh, if there was a second shooter that was trying to kill Trump, what I look for is, one, where's the victims?
And two, where's the evidence that people who are not in that line of fire were shot?
So, if you had people more up to the right or left and up to the right, and you know, then you'd say, yeah, it looks like there were multiple shooters.
I don't think there were.
Now, if the people listening to Ray yesterday, they heard him say, oh, we found eight cartridges next to the body.
Now, This underscores that either Ray didn't know what he was saying.
And that he's ignorant.
Or he was conveying something that doesn't tell us anything about how many shots are fired.
Because a cartridge is a fully intact piece of ammunition.
A cartridge consists of four components.
It has a primer, a shell casing, gunpowder, and the bullet.
So if you fire a cartridge, what's left is an empty shell casing.
So when I heard Ray say, oh, we found eight cartridges, I goes, okay, so how many did he shoot?
I think what he meant to say was there were eight shell casings.
It just shows what a dummy Christopher Wray is when it comes to firearms.
I mean, this guy, you know, that's amateur hour.
That's something that people who don't work with firearms, it's a mistake they'll make.
He's the head of the FBI.
He should know better.
Also this morning, a story in the UK Daily Mail in which he raises doubts about whether Donald Trump was actually hit by a bullet or whether The wound in his ear was caused by shrapnel.
Wow, that's ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
It seems completely ridiculous, but it seems to be, to me, is an effort to try to throw shade on the entire question of the assassination, which brings me to a company called CrowdStrike.
Now, it's interesting, in my trial, The FBI, in pretrial motions, was forced to admit that they never actually inspected the computer servers at the Democratic National Committee, and that the claim that those had been hacked, specifically by Russian intelligence, came from a report by a private IT security firm, CrowdStrikes.
The judge, in my case, would not permit us to have that document.
So, we were never able to actually see it.
It was not until the head of Proud Strikes, a man named Sean Henry, who just conveniently happened to have been a deputy to Robert Mueller at the FBI, admitted under oath that his draft report included no proof or evidence that the DNC had been hacked by Russian intelligence, or for that matter, Anyone else?
Therefore, I have to be somewhat suspicious that after the attempted assassination of Trump, and immediately after a highly successful Republican National Convention, that CrowdStrike claims that a glitch in their computer architecture, their IT architecture,
Caused one of the major dislocations in American history, shutting down airlines, railroads, banks, retail facilities, causing havoc, but completely changing the news cycle.
Is it too far-fetched to say, given the fact that for two years they lied about the servers at the DNC being hacked by the Russians, and were part of a major disinformation campaign, extremely well covered, by the way, by Aaron Maté,
No, people need to understand that CrowdStrike, in my opinion, has been a tool of the deep state.
It goes back well over eight years.
So, if you recall the legend about what happened at the DNC, that it was a Russian hack.
CrowdStrike was part of that lie.
And here's why it's a lie.
The actual founder of CrowdStrike was a guy named Alperovitch, a Ukrainian Jew.
Funny how Ukraine keeps popping up in all of these things.
Sean Henry, you're correct.
He was the CIO because he had headed up cyber security, the cyber unit at the FBI.
So, according to Alperovitch, and these are all, again, not my opinions, these are all public sources, you can back them up.
He claimed that they were called into the DNC either on April 29th or May 2nd.
He gives them two different interviews, gives two different dates.
But that early in the first week of May, they discovered that the Russians had penetrated the DNC.
So pay attention to the timeline.
So by May 5th, they knew that the Russians were inside the DNC servers.
And what did CrowdStrike do?
Nothing!
They wait until June 10th to shut down the servers and to clean them out and get rid of the Russians.
So they wait 42 days roughly.
Now, what happened in between then?
Well, we know from the WikiLeaks cables that came from the DNC, because there's metadata on them that show you when they were actually removed from the DNC server and how they were removed.
They were not taken by what's called spear phishing.
You know, when somebody sends you a message saying, Hey, this is, uh, this is your uncle Bob.
Take a look at my pictures.
And you click on it and boom, they grab your information off your computer.
No, this was downloaded onto a thumb drive or some other electronic media.
Number one, the download took place on May 25th.
So from May 25th until June 10th, A little more than two weeks.
And what happened in that time frame is that the CIA, working with the Democrat National Committee, because you say, well, why is the intelligence community involved?
Because when Seth Rich, and in my view, Seth Rich is the one who took the data, He sold it to WikiLeaks.
Well, both NSA, British GCHQ, their version of the NSA, and the CIA, and the MI6, they were collecting and monitoring any kind of communication that was coming in to WikiLeaks.
Man, when they saw that, they realized they had a problem.
We've got to come up with an explanation for how WikiLeaks got a hold of this, and we'll blame it on the Russians.
So they created the story, and they created a character called Guccifer 2.0, and we know later from another It was the cyber tools, cyber warfare tools used by the CIA that they were able to create these, I guess legends overseas that would make you think you were dealing with a foreign entity.
So here's CrowdStrike helping lie and fabricate, and they're directly working not just with the FBI, but with the CIA, to create this lie that the Russians hacked the DNC.
They did not.
And people say, well, you shouldn't raise Seth Rich in that way.
Well, let me just, let me just lay out this fact for you.
The fact that Seth Rich died in what appeared to be a random robbery murder in the streets of D.C.
Domestic crime, right?
Except the Washington Field Office was brought into it to investigate, and they were communicating the nature of the investigation with one Peter Strzok, who at the time Was running the FBI counterintelligence shop.
He was involved there.
Who in the world brings in FBI counterintelligence whose job is to monitor foreign activity on a domestic robbery?
Does that make sense?
So when I see anomalies like this, and then CrowdStrike shows up and has this convenient software outage because they're incompetent, again, Is CrowdStrike incompetent?
Well, if they're incompetent, everybody that's invested in, you know, their market cap is somewhere in the multi-billions, I believe.
The stock was selling at $350 a share.
So, you know, that's not a penny stock.
And yet, they can't get a patch right.
I've heard some speculation.
I don't have any way to validate it, but it has to be looked at.
Was this actually part of a deliberate effort to help Create a cover to divert, as you say, to divert attention away from the assassination, and more importantly, maybe clean up some files that might have implicated the people in the U.S.
government that were supporting or helping Crooks carry out this assassination attempt.
You know, I'm particularly interested to what you say about Goosefert 2.0.
I was kind of shocked in early 2019 when I was contacted by the Smoking Gun, and they had the content of direct messages on Twitter between myself and the entity identifying themselves as Guccifer 2.0.
And, of course, the headline was, Roger Stone communicates, a Trump associate, communicates with Russian asset.
Well, I'm not sure that he was a Russian asset, but most importantly, Our 28 word exchange is entirely benign, and it took place after Wikileaks had already published all of the DNC and Hillary Clinton material.
So just chronologically, we could not, and it's the only communication we had, so chronologically would not have been possible for me to be involved in the obtaining or dissemination of that material, which of course I wasn't.
Interestingly enough, after I was pardoned, There was an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post by Robert Mueller, which we both know was really written by Andrew Weissman, that said Stone was in contact with Russian intelligence assets with an S. I wasn't even in contact with one, never mind multiple.
I myself published and fully disclosed all that content, and it proved nothing whatsoever.
But before we get off of rushing collusion, you know, we waited long, five years for the Durham report.
Yet Mr. Durham didn't address any of these issues whatsoever.
He seems to have focused solely on the Steele dossier, which we already knew was a fraud paid for by Hillary Clinton with laundered campaign funds.
But he never addressed any of these issues whatsoever regarding the alleged hacking.
Did that surprise you?
Yes.
I really, I thought Durham was going to be more of a stand-up guy, and he failed.
He chickened out.
Look, you were in Communicate when Guccifer 2.0 is talking to you, you're talking to the CIA.
That was a CIA operation.
Stone cold, you know, a stone cold CIA operation.
Have no doubt about that.
Because, you know, when they created the metadata for the Guccifer 2.0 messages, metadata are things that you'll find like in footers or headers of messages.
They're normally not visible when you read them, but they put in the name of Felix Derzhinsky in Russian script, in Cyrillic alphabet.
Well, Dzerzhinsky was the first head of—I guess they called it the Cheka, and then it became later the NKVD.
It was the secret police for Lenin.
So, if you're trying to say, hey, how do we make this look like it's Russian?
Or it's like, say, how do we make this look like it's associated with Nazis?
Well, let's put the name Adolf Hitler in it.
Yeah, that'll do it.
That's exactly what they did.
So this Guccifer 2.0 character was designed to both entrap and snare and implicate other people as part of this broader Russian narrative.
I think it is so important for the American people to understand that the abuse of the intelligence agencies, and we're not just talking CIA, FBI, but it also includes NSA,
Fact of the matter was starting in the summer of 2015, Hillary Clinton, working through John Brennan, convinced Brennan to, they set up a task force, and it was a task force that was taking data from the National Security Agency, which had been collected illegally against Americans.
Some of it had been collected by the Brits and passed to us.
But they were targeting all presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders.
And then as time went on and they realized that Donald Trump was likely to be the winner, then they focused all the resources and assets on destroying him.
I mean, we live in something that I don't even believe that the Soviet Union in its worst days was this bad.
That's where we are.
And so I regret to say, and you can see the posters on the wall behind me, when I was at State, one of my jobs was the Terrorism Rewards Program.
I worked closely with the FBI on that, with Floyd Clark, who was the deputy director.
So I don't have an animus towards the FBI.
But I can tell you that my friends who I worked with back then, and they watch what has happened to the FBI today, to the CIA.
It's appalling.
They're politicized organs of the Democratic Party.
They are a danger to Americans and American freedom.
A difficult question, Larry.
I've been a friend of Donald Trump's for 45 years.
And I fear another attempt on his life.
Yeah.
I think he is such an existential threat to the establishment order and to those who have many deep crimes they have committed and who fear the possibility of being brought to justice.
So, I'm not trying to wish this into happening, but is that, I mean, the CIA's, pardon me, the Secret Service's failures here are so manifest.
leaving security to them again, even with a beefed up detail and so on, I'm really scared about this, I'm worried about this.
Are those fears unfounded or should I be concerned? - Not entirely justified.
In fact, one thing I really worry about is the use of a drone on Donald Trump's aircraft when it's either taking off or landing.
Because you can easily fly a drone into the engines, just like the bird strike that took place, you know, on that plane that flew out of LaGuardia, you know, with Captain Sully, as they called him.
So, you know, I don't think they're going to stop.
And so, you know, and frankly, you know, the Secret Service has been sloppy.
I mean, Roger, the last time I think I saw you, we just crossed paths at Mar-a-Lago back in November of 22.
They had a, it was the Lincoln Day dinner or something.
And my wife and I, we were there with the guys that run the Gateway Pundit.
And I carry concealed firearms.
So we had my concealed firearms in the car, locked up.
I had them locked in the center console.
But we drove on to Mar-a-Lago, and the Secret Service agent said, hey, do you have any firearms?
I said, well, yeah, I do.
They're right here.
And they go, oh, no, you can't be.
I have those here.
So I drove off, went back to the hotel, locked them up, came back, and the Secret Service agent says, did you get rid of those firearms?
I said, yeah.
OK, go on through.
I go, wait a second.
If I told you I had firearms, then you should at least check, inspect to make sure I don't have firearms.
Because then once they, you know, valet parked the car, I went inside.
If I had been carrying concealed, all I had to tell the guy, all I had to do is lie.
Say, no, I don't have anything.
And I could have, I, there was no other screening from that point on at that event.
I could have walked in there with a firearm.
And so it concerns me that the Secret Service is that sloppy.
It was sloppy back then.
That was not good security.
And there's, you know, security is like firearms.
It's black and white.
There's no gray area.
Yeah, you know, I tell people there's no such thing as a transgender firearm or transgender cartridge.
It's either active or it's not active.
You can either fire it or you can't fire it.
And with security, you've either got it secure or you don't have it secure.
And security means you check everybody.
You don't say, oh, so you're a friend of Donald.
Oh, we'll let you through.
Come on through.
Because you're a friend of Donald.
No.
If the standard is we want to make sure nobody's carrying a firearm through that checkpoint, everybody gets checked.
All right.
I'm really sorry that we have to leave it there because I have so many other things I'd like to ask you.
I want to thank Larry Johnson, former CIA officer and intelligence analyst and former planer and advisor at the U.S.
State Department's Office of Counterterrorism for joining us today.
This has been one of the best interviews we've ever had.
Larry, thank you for being available.
I saw you on with Stephen Gardner.
You were terrific.
It was a great interview, and I'm glad we were able to connect.
God bless you, my friend, and thank you for being in the Stone Zone.
Thank you, Roger.
Appreciate it.
Folks, you may have read that Mrs. Stone and I own the IRS over $2 million in back taxes.
Actually, that's not true.
We owe them about $420,000 in back taxes, but the rest of the $2 million are interest and penalties, which the IRS refuses to waive.
Normally, in an offer and compromise situation, you can negotiate those numbers down.
The hardest thing is to reach an agreement if you don't have that money, which we certainly don't.
The hardest thing is to Reach an agreement with the IRS that allows you to pay over time based on your income and after you have to submit substantial financial documentation.
If you are in this situation where you owe thousands or even hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, no matter what you owe to the IRS, remember that they are not your friends.
Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own.
I strongly urge you to contact people at the Tax Network USA.
They are a trusted tax relief firm that has served people like me over $1 billion in back taxes and their clients are diverse.
It doesn't matter whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million.
These folks are professionals who can help you.
Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay right now or you don't have the means to pay and have to pay over time, they can really help you resolve your tax burden once and for all.
I cannot recommend this to you strongly enough.
Call 1-800-245-6000 for a private free consultation or visit tnusa.com/stone.
If you have a tax burden hanging over your head, contact the folks at the Taxpayers Network USA.
They can help you immediately.
All right, that is our commercial break for the day.
Is John Tobacco online?
Our next guest has incredibles.
All right, let me then, I will hold forth on the political situation and hopefully we can get him online.
We are We are in the throes yesterday of a report by the New York Post that Barack Obama and his wife, of course, Michelle Obama, have withheld their endorsement from Kamala Harris.
Now, Kamala Harris is in the middle of a media, I would call honeymoon, where we're focused on the fact that she's the first It is interesting that the way their process works, that there's no input here by the voters.
black woman candidate to be nominated.
She would be the second, if she is nominated, she would be the second woman nominated for the presidency, both by the Democrat Party.
It is interesting that the way their process works, that there is no input here by the voters.
Black Lives Matter, of all people, or I should say of all organizations recognized yesterday, that there was no voter involvement here, no democratic process, and they called for a national primary in which any Democrat can vote. and they called for a national primary in which any That would presumably be done online and virally.
I don't think that is likely.
In fact, in reaction to that, it appears like the Democrat National Committee is trying to expedite their selection process so they can actually lock Kamala Harris in as the Democrat candidate prior to their August 19th convention.
Why this rush to do so?
Well, a couple reasons.
Obama, as the New York Post pointed out yesterday, who is without any question the most influential Democrat in the country, certainly one of the most influential people in the country, was, first of all, principally responsible for the move to muscle Joe out of the presidential race, Chicago-style.
It was Barack Obama who cut off the campaign money.
It is Barack Obama who I believe convinced actor George Clooney to write the op-ed piece for the New York Times telling Joe that he needed to drop.
It is Barack Obama who convinced Nancy Pelosi to contact Biden and tell him to throw in the towel.
It was Barack Obama who lined up Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, for the same purpose.
So Joe is very, very angry.
Joe actually, according to a source of mine that I trust, the same source who told me last Friday that Joe would resign from the race, drop from the race on Sunday by letter, told me that Biden's response was that And there's a quote, well now I won't go down in history like FDR, LBJ, or even Bill Clinton as one of our greatest presidents.
I'll give you some idea of the current mindset of Joe Biden.
Last night's presentation from the Oval Office It was odd from a number of points of view.
First of all, it was inappropriate.
That was a strictly political address to the nation.
It should have been paid for by Joe Biden's campaign committee rather than the American taxpayers.
There's $280 million there that could have been used to pay for that broadcast.
Secondly, I'm not sure what Biden was doing with his hands.
It was very, very odd.
Thirdly, he just continues to lie.
I mean, this guy lying is second nature.
The irony here of attacking Donald Trump of lying when Joe Biden said that border crossings under his administration today were lower than at any point in the Trump administration.
That's just a flat-out lie.
He clearly is trying to reassert himself as a player.
He's very angry at Barack Obama, who he believes pushed him out of the race.
The New York Post highlighted the fact that Obama doesn't intend to endorse anyone prior to their selection process, which leaves him free to maneuver behind the scenes in an attempt to find another nominee.
When or why would that happen?
Well, polling that anyone looks at at this juncture would be somewhat questionable because you have these cataclysmic events all happening in rapid succession.
First, there is the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Every day we seem to learn some new fact or at least allegation about that, which is shocking and keeps it in the news.
Then you had a highly successful and unified Republican National Convention.
Then after that, you had, of course, the dropping out of the race by Joe Biden.
Somewhere in the middle there, you had this national internet, or I should say, cyber outage by CrowdStrike.
That took up an entire news cycle.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that it's very hard to poll the electorate in the eye of the storm.
One has to wait until things settle down, until voters have the opportunity to process all of this information.
The earliest polls that I've seen, in which I have some confidence, Show that Donald Trump is still in a close race.
That is not surprising.
The country continues to be badly but almost evenly divided.
But I believe that when things do settle down, we're going to see Kamala Harris in about the position Joe Biden is.
In other words, she will be trailing Donald Trump as she is today in the early polls in every swing state.
Also trailing him in the states that now appear to be within Trump's grasp.
I speak of Virginia, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Maine, all states Trump lost in 2020, all states that he could conceivably win in this election.
So if we get to August 1st and Kamala Harris is trailing, and also if her performance on the stump Well, I think it's important to note that there's nothing legally or within party rules that binds the delegates of the convention to Kamala Harris, which means they could have a different nominee.
They're supposedly going to an open convention.
That would presumably mean that another name could be put in nomination.
Therefore, I'm going to continue to stick to my prediction that the ultimate nominee here will be Michelle Obama.
I still believe that that is a real possibility.
If it looks like Kamala Harris is going to lose, well, they'll pull the plug on her the same way they pulled the plug on Joe Biden.
So I'm not changing that prediction.
But then there's my other prediction.
So I predicted, going back to 2018, in an interview with New American Magazine, that Joe Biden would not be a candidate for re-election.
Pardon me, let me rephrase.
I predicted in 2018, in an interview with New American Magazine, that there would be an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and now there has been.
I predicted at Turning Point USA over a year ago that Joe Biden would not be the nominee of the party, so I'm now 2-for-2.
I predicted that Michelle Obama would be the nominee.
I may or may not yet be right about that.
But then on July 6th, I predicted that Kamala Harris would choose Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate.
I want to reiterate that prediction because I believe that it is still accurate.
I'm very anxious to see how this all works out.
I really do fear another assassination attempt on President Donald Trump, as I said earlier in the show.
I'm very concerned that too much trust is being put in the Secret Service.
Now, I was told back in June of last year, actually during Charlie Kirk's great Turning Point USA conference in Palm Beach, That the Trump requests for additional personnel and manpower and resources for his protection had been routinely denied by the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Mayorkas.
The Secret Service specifically denied that, that same day I said it publicly, reported it here on the Stone Zone.
Only to backtrack and admit days later that, in fact, they had denied all of those requests for additional funding and personnel to protect Trump.
I don't believe anything said by the Secret Service.
I'm still very curious about the role of a man named Maxwell Yerrick, if any.
Now, as I said on X, a source within Pennsylvania law enforcement, someone just based on their position and record, I trust, told me that a man named Maxwell Yerrick, who has a prior record of assault on Trump supporters, I think on two occasions, who actually fought in Ukraine as a mercenary,
Who was or is a member of Antifa was actually the shooter rather than Mr. Crooks.
I'm not saying Crooks is or is not the shooter.
I'm not saying that Eric is or is not the shooter.
What I'm saying is that I have these reports.
The Warren Commission insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy.
That was not accurate.
So is Crooks really the man who shot at Trump?
We don't know.
All right, John Tobacco, who I think is, without any question, the smartest guy on Wall Street, does a great show at Newsmax, The Wise Guys, but a guy who is not only
A great entrepreneur, a great businessman, a great trader, a great analyst of what's going on in Wall Street, but also someone who's been in the forefront of protecting New York communities from this influx of illegal migrants, who's been, I think, one of the most articulate critics of Mayor Eric Adams and his bungling of this issue, a proud son of Staten Island, New York.
John Tabacco joins us now.
Roger, thanks for having me.
Wow, John, that's a great looking jacket you got there.
Well, I heard you a couple of weeks ago on your radio show in New York on 77 WABC refer to someone as a Boulevardier.
And then when I went and looked it up, I said, oh boy, I got to acquire a new title.
So I thought you'd like the oatmeal and black check with the subtle solid tie.
The best part of it, John, is the peak lapels on a single suit.
That is very, very good.
Anyway, we're close horses, folks.
Just excuse us.
You have some shocking findings from Wall Street, from the stock market, in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's attempted assassination.
Tell us what you learned and why this is so shocking.
Well, Roger, I'm sure you've heard through all the memes, stock crowd and everything going on social media that there's this technique used on Wall Street called short selling.
And many people didn't know about it until recently.
It's like the best hidden secret.
But there's actually a way that you can profit.
By betting that stocks go down.
And many retail investors against this.
It's certainly been alleged that it's been used to hurt stocks intentionally and manipulatively.
Just short selling happens to be my expertise.
And I follow every single metric.
I want to thank you for that introduction.
It's humbling.
But for the last 30 years, I've been following the behavior and patterns and analytics of short sellers.
And as I started to look and take my political mind and my timeline, I said, wait a minute, why are people still shorting Trump's stock after the debate?
The debate was a no brainer.
No one on earth would bet against Trump's company after what happened in that debate.
But I saw this covert, systematic effort to accumulate a short position in Donald Trump's stock.
I couldn't figure out why.
I reported it to some folks independently around the legal team and the public markets for DJT.
And this chart you're showing, you see the bottom line there.
That's how many people were short for like the last 40 days in Donald Trump's stock.
And then the day after the debate, you see that little red pop up.
That's extra, on top, one day after.
And then every single day after that, depending on the volume and the market conditions, but there was an increase to that position.
And I'm thinking, what wild man is betting that they want to short Trump's stock?
He's on his way up right now.
It can't be.
And then I went back.
I followed it back.
It started the day after the debate.
You heard CIA director of former CIA Director Kim Cheadle say the other day that they need about five to seven days.
The campaign has to inform.
The secret service like 5 to 7 days before they announce a date.
Trump announced this Pennsylvania rally on the 3rd.
I went back 7 days from that and sure enough, it's right on the 28th and day after the debate.
So my contention is that there was a systematic single actor or entity that has shorted Trump stock significantly.
From the day after the debate until July 12th.
And then it just whacks of someone knowing something.
Because I follow short selling in many stocks every single day for the last 30 years.
There are no real fundamental reasons to be short to the tune of 10 million shares.
In Donald Trump's stock following that debate.
So, Roger, I think someone knew.
I can tell you back around, you know, the banking crisis.
I got called in, luckily, as a subject matter expert on this stuff because there were entities that were shorting U.S.
financials, banks and financial institutions.
And I was, you know, worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Banking Committee, FBI.
And as it turned out, some of our worst enemies were using foreign sovereign wealth funds like countries like Oman and Qatar to be their beard and go in and short the hell out of our banks.
So I wouldn't be surprised with the word of this Iranian threat.
The way I see this systemic position being built over a week and a half leading up to it, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some degree of a state actor in this process.
John, is there a way to determine exactly who it is that was shorting the stock?
Well, look, FINRA and the SEC have access to that data down to every granular thing there is.
The information is available.
I've made my information available to folks that I think should know about it.
And I certainly think, you know, In the see something, say something world, a lot of people were saying something.
There's a guy on the roof.
There's a guy with a sight.
There's a guy with a rifle.
But the authorities didn't do anything.
I'm saying something.
I'm telling you that this is an anomaly.
It's an acute anomaly to what I've seen historically.
And to me, I think the Intelligence Committee should be looking at it.
I think the Oversight Committee, who's launching an investigation into the Secret Service, we should know when they were informed from Trump that they wanted to have a campaign there.
Who were the people that went out?
Who specifically named names?
Set the interior, set the interior midterm and long range perimeters to that building.
And then, you know, potentially someone who could have set the stage and the perimeter could have certainly left an opening.
Roger, I tried to get it into the Bronx rally.
I tried to garner one extra media pass for a cameraman a couple days before, and I, as a Newsmax reporter and a pretty good New York Street guy, I could work my way into places, could not get in.
It was locked down tighter than a turtle's pecker, as Jackie Gleason said in Smokey and the Bandit.
I don't understand how a young man could be spotted 45 minutes before, dressed weird, with garb, with sights, climbing on a roof, and it just, in Staten Island speak, I smell a rat on this one from a mile away.
Yeah, it really doesn't add up at all.
Now you have the FBI director, according to the UK Daily Mail, claiming that he's not really sure Trump got hit by a bullet.
Please, he's insulting the American people.
All right, I'm afraid we are out of time.
John Tabacco, tell folks where they can see your great show.
Well, I come on every Saturday at 10 o'clock, but every time Trump has a rally, then he goes rambling on and on, and I get preempted.
But Saturdays at 10, Sundays at 11.30, and all across the network, Wayne Thank you for joining us in the Stone Zone.
out there, I'm telling you, not only did they try to kill him, somehow they tried to profit off it also, which is sickening.
All right.
We have to leave it there.
John Tobacco, easily one of the single best dressed men in the country, recognized for being so.
I'm my yearly international best dressed list.
Thank you for joining us in the Stone Zone.
Thanks for having me, Roger.
All right, folks.
That's about it for today.
There's so much breaking news and political developments.
It's actually fun to do the show, but we never have enough time to squeeze everything in.
I want to remind you that we are, of course, proud to be sponsored by the folks at MyPillow.com.
Don't want to leave them out.
You can go to MyPillow.com, and when you do, please use promo code STONE.
Please use promo code STONE.
Keeps the lights on here at Stone Zone.
Mrs. Stone will be very grateful whether it is the dog beds or the pet blankets or the incredibly absorbent bath and shower towels or the luxurious bed sheets or of course the legendary pillows.
You'll find the greatest products at MyPillow.com and you can help me and Mrs. Stone and our good friend Mike Lindell by going to MyPillow.com now and when you do, please use promo code STONE.
Thanks!
All right, that's it for the Stone Zone today.
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.