Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 5, 2024 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone

47:51

Will a NY Judge Jail Trump Next Week? w/ Trump Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen | The StoneZONE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

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.
	We're very privileged to have with us today as our guest, David Shone.
	He's one of the most prominent criminal defense and constitutional attorneys in the country.
	He represented President Donald Trump most ably in one of the impeachment proceedings on the floor of the U.S.
	Senate, someone we call on from time to time for his Thank you very much.
	Great to be here.
	So, David, obviously it's rare that you see this kind of legal backdrop in a campaign for president, but from the period that President Trump announced that he would be running again, he became a target for what has become known as lawfare.
	This is an effort to try to first impoverish him, bankrupt him, then now incarcerate him, and of course the larger issue is an attempt to blacken his name in the run-up to a presidential election.
	The president faces sentencing in a Manhattan courtroom in front of Judge Juan Marchand in the so-called hush money case, which seems to be to be a pretty thin case to begin with.
	He went to the federal courts to try to get a delay in this proceedings.
	But that evidently yesterday was denied.
	So give us your view here, an overview of what's likely to happen and how this particular aspect of lawfare plays out.
	So the effort, most recent effort to go to federal court before Judge Alvin Hellerstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was the second attempt.
	They were before Judge Hellerstein when the case started, and he rejected their efforts.
	There's a federal statute, 28 U.S.C.
	1442A1, That allows a government official who has a criminal case brought in state court to try to remove the case to federal court if the conducted issue is an act related to any act taken under color of the office that the person held.
	And so that was the theory here that some of the Facts alleged in the New York case before Judge Merchant, the so-called hush money case, were taken, if at all, when President Trump was president and therefore they related to his office and the case should be moved to federal court.
	Judge Hellerstein rejected that some time ago and no appeal was taken.
	They now, the Trump team now, moved again before this sentencing to ask Judge Hellerstein To take it up again, raising two grounds, essentially.
	One, that Judge Murchand is biased and should have accused himself and refuses to do that.
	And the second, the same argument that it relates to an act taken, an official act, let's call it, and that the immunity decision from the Supreme Court changes the analysis from the first time Judge Hellerstein heard it.
	And now, since we know that some of the acts involved were acts taken after President Trump was president, there has to be an examination Of whether those acts are covered by immunity as official acts and therefore the case should be in federal court.
	Judge Hellerstein kind of summarily dismissed it all last night and said nothing has happened, no decision, no facts alleged have occurred that would change his opinion.
	So it's back to Judge Murchand.
	Apparently now the Trump team is going to appeal it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and will ask Judge Murchand again to postpone the sentencing while that appeal runs its course.
	What is the what is the makeup of the Second Circuit and any thoughts on how they might rule?
	I understand the courts are entirely nonpolitical, except, of course, when they are.
	I said that you didn't.
	How do you think that plays out?
	The Second Circuit's kind of all over the place on the whole, both ends of the spectrum.
	There are a few more recent appointees that, good and bad, let's say, for an issue like this.
	I don't think it's likely that the Second Circuit will take it up.
	There's this sort of overriding sentiment, it seems, that while this shouldn't guide judicial decisions, but an overriding sentiment That the case should just go before Judge Merchant and run its course in the state system.
	I will say this, I would bet dollars to donuts that the conviction will be reversed.
	It has to be reversed if the integrity of the rule of law means anything in New York.
	It seems to me President Trump was charged and convicted under a statute that Was never really identified the government of state prosecutors never identified what the underlying crime was again, you know, just in a nutshell.
	It was a misdemeanor to make false business records supposedly to cover up.
	First of all, to make false business records regarding checks paid to Stormy Daniels, and then they transform it into a felony, supposedly, by showing that that was done to commit or to hide some other crime.
	They refuse to identify what this some other crime was.
	Could have been to help him in the election, could have been for tax purposes, or otherwise, all completely different defenses.
	The judge refused to make the prosecution identify the crime.
	There's a clear due process violation, effective assistance of counsel violation, and so on.
	There's no way the verdict can be upheld consistent with the rule of law.
	And so, I don't believe the DA really cares about that.
	Ultimately, they want all of this to play out before the election.
	They want there to be a sentencing.
	They want to be able to trump it as they have.
	One of the things that surprised me was the limitations that the judge put on President Trump's defense.
	phony set of charges, as even Trump haters have said from the start.
	Former Attorney General and Governor Cuomo in New York has said, if Trump were not running for president, these charges never would have been brought, in his opinion.
	One of the things that surprised me was the limitations that the judge put on President Trump's defense.
	Now, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised because the judge in my case put the same kind of limitations on President Trump's defense.
	On my defense, but for example, if it is alleged that the underlying crime was a federal election law violation, the judge denied Trump and his lawyers the ability to call the former vice chairman and general counsel to the Federal Election Commission, who's pretty widely viewed as the foremost expert on that law.
	Do those become appealable matters at the next step?
	Absolutely.
	There's an independent defense here that he was denied the right to put on a defense, period.
	And that includes calling witnesses, putting forward theories of defense in cross-examination and in direct testimony.
	It includes the jury instructions that went out.
	How on earth should a lay jury be able to decide whether he committed—he doctored up his business records in order to attempt to commit or to commit or to cover up some election finance violation?
	When they can't possibly understand, it's not subject to lay sort of view, the federal election finance rules.
	There are many, many as you well know, many detailed rules on what can be done, can't be done.
	And the question, of course, in this case, factually, would have been, if he even made false business entries, was it done to cover up something for embarrassment purposes so his wife wouldn't find out?
	Do people really think that the vote for or against President Trump in that election was going to be determined by whether they thought he had a relationship with any particular woman or not?
	It's absurd.
	We had, you know, major national security issues and other Important issues.
	But anyway, your point is well taken.
	That is, he was never permitted to put on a defense, and that raises all kinds of constitutional violations.
	Before we leave New York, let's speak to the other high-profile case there.
	Judge Engeron, obviously convicted or found against President Trump on the so-called valuations case.
	This one really boggles the mind because, as I watched it, the president wasn't allowed to put on any defense at all.
	It was basically, you're guilty, now we're just going to decide how much you're going to pay.
	How do you think that case ultimately plays out?
	That's absolutely right.
	And here he put on an expert, he put on bank witnesses who said there was no loss.
	In fact, the banks made a lot of money off of it and that he had done nothing wrong.
	But the judge in this case, because he heard it as a bench trial rather than a jury trial, was able to make credibility findings and just discounted the Trump witnesses and credited Letitia James, Attorney General Letitia James's Again, that case must be reversed on appeal for many reasons.
	The executive law at issue itself purports to charge fraud.
	It's the only variety of so-called fraud that doesn't require any reliance on a materially false statement of any kind or any loss or any victim.
	So, it's absurd, but I think a big issue that I really don't hear talked about much is the denial of the jury trial in the case.
	This same executive law came before a federal judge, Louis Stanton, in the U.S.
	District Court, the Southern District of New York, and he found that in federal court, there's a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, under this exact same law, That the state court has found there is no right to a jury trial under the state constitution.
	So there's a real tension there that I believe turns on serious issues of due process and the right to a jury trial.
	I believe that even under the New York constitution, there was a right to jury trial.
	There's a procedural question because President Trump's lawyers didn't request, timely request, a jury trial.
	But I think there's an argument there to be made that it would have been futile and therefore there can't be any constitutional waiver.
	Since there was already a case in New York that said you don't get the right to a jury trial.
	But that's a major consideration.
	That's a fundamental part of our system.
	The reason, by the way, that a New York state court had said there's no right to a jury trial is because they found that this executive law isn't really about damages.
	It's about putting some fraudster out of business or alerting the public and so on.
	And so they said when damages are incidental to the law, then there's no right to a jury trial.
	Here, the The damages carry the day in the case.
	It's unprecedented damages, hundreds of millions of dollars.
	They're not incidental to anything.
	And so I think his fundamental right to a jury trial was denied.
	I wish that issue had been raised more squarely on the appeal, but I think he'll win the appeal anyway.
	So let's go back to the most danger-fraught part of this, the sentencing of President Donald Trump on the 18th.
	In the event that the Judge orders him into immediate incarceration, presumably at Rikers Island.
	There have got to be serious questions regarding his ongoing secret service protection.
	This may not be a legal question, but logistically I'm not even sure how that could work.
	I'm not either.
	It's unprecedented.
	You can be sure that the Attorney General in New York and the District Attorney will assure Judge Merchant that they can provide proper security with the Secret Service.
	They'll find a facility for it and all of that.
	It's a bunch of nonsense.
	And for anyone who has suggested that this was election interference, putting President Trump out of commission during the election season I'm in agreement with you there.
	So, as I understand it, until sentencing is complete, the President really can't file his appeal.
	polls because of these ongoing efforts.
	There's no reason for any of this to be conducted before the election.
	I'm in agreement with you there.
	So as I understand it, until sentencing is complete, the president really can't file his appeal.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct, because there won't be a final judgment to appeal from in the case until the sentence has been imposed.
	All right.
	Let's move to the so-called documents case, which at this juncture, as you know, Judge Eileen Cannon of the 11th Circuit has ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional for a couple reasons.
	First of all, there's no provision in law for the creation of that position.
	Secondarily, Mr. Smith, very much like Robert Mueller, was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
	He was not a sitting U.S. attorney.
	I know that Hunter Biden's lawyers tried to raise this issue pertaining to special counsel David Weiss, but Weiss was a U.S. attorney.
	attorney.
	His authority has been confirmed by the U.S.
	Senate.
	It's interesting to see Andrew Weissman and Joyce Vance and all these other
	Virulent, vicious partisans posing as unbiased legal analysts insisting that the ruling by Judge Cannon is in a fringe case, that it's an illegitimate theory, even though it was put forward by former Attorney General Ed Meese and two respected law professors, neither one of whom is particularly a Trump supporter but focused solely on the law.
	The judge essentially ruled that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
	Smith has announced his intention.
	I think he may even have filed his appeal with the 11th Circuit.
	How do you think this plays out?
	It's a fascinating case to me.
	As you know, also, there is a more summary decision from the D.C.
	Circuit upholding the special counsel position, notwithstanding these constitutional problems that Judge Cannon Very importantly, I think Judge Cannon identified at least two major constitutional problems.
	The factual scenario that you've identified, no statute authorizing the office, no proper appointment, no confirmation by the Senate, he's not an inferior officer.
	And so those apply under the Appropriations, under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.
	But she also raised the Appropriations Clause argument, which is very important.
	And that is that we only appropriate money for offices that have been legally authorized, and that that isn't the case here.
	And that's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
	So that's another important argument.
	And that's why she heard testimony about, or argument at least, about this unlimited budget that Jack Smith seems to have.
	And by the way, it should go mentioned that Jack Smith has on his team, again, some of the worst prosecutors around.
	I have a sanctions motion going against J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston, two members of his team, and a pending case in D.C.
	right now, and you certainly know J.P.
	Cooney.
	But it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
	What's disturbing to me is that we see these so-called scholars or commentators suggesting this is a frivolous decision.
	It's not a frivolous decision by any means, and Professor Calabresi and Lawson from Northwestern and Boston University didn't write a frivolous argument on this subject.
	As you said, Meese wouldn't have filed it had it been frivolous.
	So, it's a very interesting argument, the way it played out.
	I'm also concerned about an amicus brief that a group is trying to file now, run by former federal judge Nancy Gertner and NYU ethics expert Steve Gillers, asking the 11th Circuit, U.S.
	Court of Appeals, to remove Judge Cannon from the case.
	There is no basis for removing Judge Cannon, and I'd like to know where these experts and moral
	Barometers are, with respect to Judge Merchant, who has the clearest case of recusal or disqualification under New York law of any that I've ever seen, quite frankly, given his daughter's clear conflict of interest and the provision in the New York ethics law for mandatory recusal when there's a possibility or likelihood that a family member of the judge could have a financial interest substantially affected.
	Yeah, this is a reoccurring theme.
	So in other words, when a judge who was appointed, let's say, by Barack Obama, issues a ruling that is a politically oriented case, that's perfectly all right.
	So even though the Russian collusion hoax we now know Based on the report of Special Counsel John Durham, was hatched in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama present, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, the Attorney General, the head of the FBI.
	The fact that the judge who sat on my case, the judge who sat on General Flynn's case, the judge who sat on Paul Manafort's case, they were all appointed by Barack Obama.
	You see, that was no problem whatsoever.
	Now, when Judge Cannon, who was, by the way, a respected prosecutor and highly regarded in the circuit, when she makes a judgment adverse to what the radical left wants, she's incompetent.
	She's unqualified.
	This is outrageous.
	She's going to be removed from the circuit.
	It's an extraordinary double standard.
	And they continue to insist that the issues raised by Attorney General Meese and ultimately by Trump's lawyers, these are fringe theories.
	I mean, David, you've read their pleadings.
	Are these fringe theories?
	Not at all.
	They're very important constitutional issues that have to be fleshed out.
	You know, I don't know who's going to win in the case.
	Again, the 11th Circuit, the panels are extraordinarily different depending on who they get.
	And reasonable people can differ on the issues.
	But I'm telling you, Professor Calabresi makes a very strong legal argument in his article on which these arguments are based.
	And there has to be a full and fair I can't actually think of any time in American politics where the U.S.
	as you've said, and as is going on from Neil Caddiel and Andrew Weissman and all of these folks mocking it on the television.
	This is an important civics lesson for the American people, and nobody should mock the application of the provisions of the Constitution that are involved in this case.
	I can't actually think of any time in American politics where the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling where they were subsequently attacked on that ruling by a sitting president of the United States.
	I'm sure President Nixon wasn't happy with the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the requirement that he release the Watergate tapes, the so-called White House tapes.
	He had a legitimate argument that they were his personal property.
	The Supreme Court ruled against him.
	He didn't defy the court, nor did he attack or vilify the court.
	I can't remember.
	I can't ever remember a time in which a sitting president attacked the court and basically said that he doesn't intend to honor the court's rulings.
	This is kind of the beginning of the end.
	David, final point, because I know you're pressed for time and I appreciate your being with us.
	The Supreme Court reforms put forward by President Joe Biden I'm a layman, but I read them.
	It seems to me that they are a total violation of the entire concept of the separation of powers that have served the country well for 200 years.
	Your thoughts?
	I think it's a horrible initiative.
	It ties into what you just said before this, and that is the unprecedented attacks by the chief executive, President Biden, Vice President Harris, on the institution of the Supreme Court and on the individual justices.
	It's absolutely outrageous.
	And, you know, we hear these claims By now-candidate Harris that the Republican Party is anti-democratic and Donald Trump would tear apart democracy.
	There are no more anti-democratic initiatives than things like the Democratic Party has been undertaking.
	Trying to pack the court now, trying to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices because they don't like their decisions, undermining the integrity of the court.
	Yeah, it's true the Supreme Court justices aren't elected, but they're a fundamental part of our constitutional system under Article 3 of the Constitution.
	These are horrible initiatives.
	There's so many anti-democratic statements coming out of this administration, candidate Harris and President Biden.
	And it starts with the Congress as well.
	You know, Jerry Nadler said we can't trust the voters with respect to Trump.
	Yes, we can.
	That's part of our democratic system, a fundamental part.
	The voters get to choose who their leader will be in this country.
	So we've got to stop this anti-democratic Action by the Democratic Party, including, by the way, going into states around the country to very aggressively remove or prevent third party candidates from getting on the ballot so that people have a choice other than the two.
	That's, again, a fundamental part of our constitutional system, the right to vote and the right to stand for office.
	And so we see the Democratic Party as part of what led to RFK Jr.
	withdrawing and throwing a support Behind President Trump now.
	Final question since you raised it.
	An important part of your practice has always been helping candidates of various parties or independent candidates get ballot access.
	Kind of a fundamental right.
	It's interesting.
	The Democrats spent literally tens of millions of dollars to prevent Robert Kennedy from being on the ballot in various states.
	But now, That he's withdrawn and decided to endorse and support President Trump.
	Yesterday, a judge denied him the ability to get his name off the ballot in Michigan.
	So first they fought his ability to get on the ballot.
	Now that he's on, but he's no longer a federal candidate, the judge in Michigan refuses to remove him from the ballot.
	Your analysis of that?
	Same in North Carolina.
	You know, they often come up with it.
	There is this principle that on the eve of election, ballot printing initiatives are difficult to undertake and we don't make last-minute changes.
	They do when they want to and when they have to.
	There's significant precedent coming out of Chicago with former Mayor Washington and so on when they last-minute ordered ballots to be changed.
	It's true there are overseas ballots that are out and so on.
	But we have to allow people to be on the ballot or take people off of the ballot when it's appropriate.
	And it's appropriate here because it will skew the vote.
	Listen, in California, you know, they've gone to this top two primary system so that people only have two candidates that they can vote for.
	I'm about to file a constitutional challenge to that system.
	I believe it violates many All right.
	I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.
	I want to thank my guest, David Schon, to my mind, one of the most brilliant legal minds in the United States.
	David, thank you so much for giving us your time today.
	Thank you very much.
	off the ballot and make that clear to people.
	All right.
	I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.
	I want to thank my guest, David Schoen, to my mind, one of the most brilliant legal minds in the United States.
	David, thank you so much for giving us your time today.
	Thank you very much.
	It's an honor, always.
	Yesterday, in an extraordinary interview with Kash Patel, the former National Security Advisor and Acting Chief of Staff of the USDA.
	Defense Department, and Sean Ryan, Patel pointed out the vulnerability of our electrical grid.
	In fact, he predicted that there would be an attack to shut down America's electrical power grid.
	You know, the last time I thought about this was when AT&T's cell service went down.
	It was a nightmare.
	And then I decided to do something about it.
	I got the Iridium 9555 phone and their proprietary Iridium satellite service.
	Take a look.
	This is Roger Stone.
	Remember when AT&T's cell phone outage left millions, including me, stranded without a means to communicate with loved ones, business associates, or even for emergency services?
	You see, cellular networks are particularly vulnerable, big targets for hackers and terrorists, as well as vulnerable to hurricanes and other natural disasters.
	So if your cell phone goes down, how will you communicate?
	That's why I got the Iridium 9555 satellite phone and service.
	I'm using the proprietary Iridium satellite service.
	Cell networks only cover about 7% of the Earth, while the Iridium system covers 100% of the Earth.
	You can call or text from any place.
	You can see the sky.
	These are trusted by U.S.
	military and government officials everywhere.
	All calls are encrypted, safe and secure.
	No eavesdropping, no hacking.
	It's the reason the U.S.
	military uses Iridium phones and the U.S.
	Senate uses satellite phones for their secure phone calls.
	You too can ensure your privacy by using our Iridium proprietary satellite network.
	Just go to sat123.com slash roger.
	No tracking and no one can listen to your calls.
	No one will ever read your text but the person you're sending them to.
	And more importantly, Big Tech cannot steal and then sell your data.
	You can get the Iridium 9555 phone at no cost if you sign up for a plan with a 24-month agreement.
	A monthly plan is only $95.95 and you get the phone for free.
	You can get a plan with us for as little as $85.95.
	And then there are discounted family share plans with up to three free phones.
	Those are also available.
	The Iridium 9555 satellite phone will work from anywhere on Earth with no exceptions.
	Oh, and how do you keep your satellite phone charged in the event of an electrical grid shutdown?
	You're going to want our solar-powered satellite phone recharger.
	You can get it all by going to sat123.com slash roger.
	You need to have secure communications.
	Get your Iridium 9555 phone now.
	I'm Roger Stone and you're back on The Stone Zone.
	Florida has a constitutional amendment on the ballot, Amendment 3, that would legalize cannabis.
	That's right, it would legalize marijuana.
	At the same time, it would leave to the legislature the right to both regulate it and tax it and ensure its purity.
	Now, under this system, you would, for example, the legislature, could prohibit public use.
	That way it doesn't smell like marijuana every place.
	I endorsed Amendment 3 several weeks ago, and I'm happy to say that President Donald Trump has now endorsed Amendment 3.
	President Trump, posting on True Social, says, as everyone knows, I was, and will be again, the most respected law and order president in U.S.
	history.
	Uh, whether we like it or not, Amendment 3 will be legalized.
	In Florida, like so many other states that have given approval, personal amounts of marijuana will be legalized for adults.
	Whether we like it or not, this will happen, though the approval of voters, so it must be done correctly.
	We need the state legislature, Trump said, to responsibly create laws that prohibit its public use in public spaces so we don't have to smell marijuana everywhere we go, as they do in so many Democrat-run cities.
	At the same time, Trump wrote, someone should not be a criminal in Florida when it is legal in so many other states.
	Now, Congressman Matt Gaetz is opposed to Amendment 3.
	That's because it is being done in the form of a constitutional amendment, meaning the advocates of Amendment 3 went out and collected a necessary number of signatures and met other very strict legal requirements for the wording of constitutional amendments in Florida.
	Gates says that he would have preferred that this be done through the legislative process.
	That's, of course, completely unrealistic.
	Here's why.
	The only reason we have medicinal marijuana currently legal in Florida is through constitutional amendment.
	That's because the Republican legislature and Governor Rick Scott opposed it and the legislature refused to either pass it as a law or to put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
	Therefore, John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan stepped forward and put together a constitutional amendment to legalize cannabis for medicinal use, of course, leaving the ability to regulate that in a regulatory and distribution scheme to the legislature.
	The first time he put it on the ballot, it failed very narrowly.
	Constitutional amendments in Florida require 60% of the vote.
	Second time, to his credit, John Morgan corrected all of the mistakes he had made in the previous effort.
	He drafted a much, much better constitutional amendment and it passed.
	Here's the problem.
	Florida's constitutional, pardon me, Florida's medicinal, medical marijuana system is cumbersome, bureaucratic, extremely restrictive, limited, expensive and very user unfriendly.
	See, under the law passed by the legislature to regulate medicinal marijuana, its use is only limited to a very specific list of illnesses and diseases.
	The system requires a license card, which has to be renewed.
	It's a nightmare.
	Now, I feel strongly about this because, frankly, when my own father was dying of cancer, and he was wasting away because he had no appetite and he was in horrific pain, my sister and I got him cannabis, which he smoked, and It both put weight on him, restored his appetite and helped him ease the pain.
	I believe that there are veterans, and many in Florida, who must rely on cannabis for medicine, but the current system of medicinal marijuana isn't working.
	That's why I support Amendment 3, and why I'm proud that President Trump now also supports this act of freedom.
	All right.
	Here's another interesting story I wanted to touch on.
	Again, broken by my friend Laura Loomer, then in the New York Post, Tim Walz's older brother, Jeff Walz, has come out against his brother's candidacy for vice president.
	Writing in the, being quoted in the New York Post, he says, I'm 100% opposed to all his ideology.
	Jeff Waltz declares Friday evening to the Post.
	He said he had little faith in his kid brother.
	I thought long and hard about doing something like that.
	I'm torn between that and just keeping my family out of it, the 67-year-old Floridian wrote.
	Uh, the stories I could tell.
	Tim Walsh is not the kind of character you want making decisions for your future, he added.
	Besides Tim Walsh, he has a sister, Sandra Dietrich, who lives in Nebraska where the Walsh clan grew up.
	Another brother, Craig Walsh, is deceased.
	As you can see, now all the members of the Walsh family, other than perhaps Tim Walsh's wife, are now opposing his candidacy.
	Uh, the other thing that caught my interest this week was Kamala Harris.
	Kamala Harris seems to be out front for the censorship of X, X which used to be known as Twitter, X which is fundamentally a - Free speech site.
	Let's take a look at Kamala Harris. - He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.
	And the bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.
	The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power.
	They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.
	And that has to stop.
	That is amazing because, of course, it's not a privilege, it's a right to say that Elon Musk or the people at X have lost their privileges.
	This is not a privilege, but I think it is a portent to dangerous things to come.
	We know that the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, which interfered in the 2020 election by censoring free speech, such as, oh, I don't know, Hunter Biden's laptop allegedly being Russian intelligence.
	We know that they are again planning to interfere with this election.
	Censorship, interestingly enough, was one of the three issues that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	listed in his powerful endorsement of Donald Trump.
	I'm going to keep us up with this issue because I still think censorship is the single greatest impediment.
	To a free, fair, honest, transparent election.
	We had Dr. Robert Epstein on my 77 WABC radio show recently, and he talked about the way Google manipulates a data.
	For example, if you are a Democrat, you will get multiple reminders to vote, whether to vote early or to vote on election day from Google.
	But if you're a Republican, well, you'll get no such reminders.
	This is a video I have to show you.
	I love the guys at the Dilley Mean Teams and Rambo Rance is among my favorites.
	Check this out.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	You gotta love that.
	You just, you just have to love that.
	Shocking news out of the ingoing inquiry into the events in Butler, Pennsylvania.
	Yesterday, Congressman Cory Mills revealed that those guarding President Trump, rather than most of them being seasoned or experienced secret service agents actually were employees of the Department of Homeland Security.
	But don't worry, folks, each one of them had had at least a two hour webinar to train them in executive protection.
	Unbelievable.
	If you are interested in the topic of assassination, let me recommend to you my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.
	Now, in this book, I use eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics in a heavily documented book making the case that LBJ Along with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, Big Texas Oil, organized crime, and yes, Wall Street interests all plotted together to murder President John F. Kennedy.
	Now, if you want, you could get my book.
	It's a New York Times bestseller, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
	You could buy it at Amazon or you could buy it at Barnes & Noble.
	But unless you don't want to give money to a multinational corporation that hates your guts, let me suggest you go to themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
	That's themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
	If you do that, then you will not only get the paperback version that has three additional chapters, but you will get a personally signed copy.
	And yes, it can be personalized.
	Well, the election is more than two months away.
	Is it really surprising that the Biden administration is now raising the false specter of Russian interference?
	There's going to be Russian interference in our election.
	We've heard this one before.
	Take a look at this video.
	Donald Trump's campaign chairman was secretly meeting with Russian intelligence.
	Russia interfered with our election, attacked our democracy.
	I think he's guilty because he knows... Of what?
	What did he do?
	Well, he's the one who can answer that.
	I think he knows... You said he's guilty.
	What's he guilty of?
	Well, I think he feels that there is something that's going to come out about Russia.
	Why are other Americans basically believing Putin?
	Why did Trump believe Putin more than our 11 intelligence agencies?
	I don't know.
	Do you have a working theory?
	I think I do have a working theory.
	Well, the role of the government, in his view, is to advance his political fortunes and destroy his political enemies.
	So, what would a second term look like?
	It would look a lot like Vladimir Putin in Russia.
	It would look a lot like Viktor Orban in Hungary.
	Illiberal democracy.
	In 2016, the Russians intervened heavily in our election to try to elect Donald Trump.
	They intervened with a massive social media campaign run out of Well, it is like Watergate in the sense that you had a break-in at the Democratic headquarters.
	In this case, a virtual one, not a physical break-in.
	And you had a president as part of a cover-up.
	And here you have a president doing a different kind of cover-up.
	Are you worried that Putin could be attempting, and the Kremlin could be attempting, to intervene in our election in 2024?
	And should we all be spending more time talking about that?
	I am very concerned about it.
	It wouldn't be the first time that Russia has intervened in our election.
	No.
	It wouldn't be the first time they've done it to try to help elect Donald Trump.
	And they have so much more at stake today than they did back in 2016.
	With the war going on in Ukraine, with NATO enlarging around it, they feel beleaguered.
	And here comes Donald Trump, a real lifeline.
	They have more at stake.
	They have less reason to avoid risk.
	This is an absurdity.
	Let's address them one by one.
	Paul Manafort was meeting with Russian intelligence assets.
	on the GOP.
	False.
	So they have more in stake now than they did before.
	They have less risk aversion than they did before.
	So yes, we should fully expect them to engage.
	It's just a question of how much they engage.
	This is an absurdity.
	Let's address them one by one.
	Paul Manafort was meeting with Russian intelligence assets.
	False.
	They go on to say, usually, that Paul Manafort shared proprietary polling information from the Trump campaign with a man named Konstantin Kalimnik, who they claim is a Russian intelligence asset.
	There's a couple problems with this.
	First of all, the Trump campaign had no proprietary polling information, so any information that Manafort gave to Kalemnik would have been from published public sources.
	Secondarily, as the independent journalist Matt Taibbi has absolutely documented, Konstantin Kalemnik was not a Russian intelligence asset.
	In fact, he was a U.S.
	intelligence asset.
	Reporting regularly to the State Department and to the embassy in Kiev.
	His name was redacted from a number of documents because he was a confidential source for our government.
	Secondarily, there of course is the claim that Roger Stone was communicating with Guccifer 2.0, who was a Russian intelligence asset.
	Well, first of all, the very brief 28-word exchange between somebody calling himself Goofsfor2.0 and me on Twitter Direct Messages took place three months after the Democratic National Committee had been hacked, but also after WikiLeaks had already published all of the material between the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
	So I spoke to them after the fact.
	Also the actual text of all of our exchange.
	Our only exchange is completely innocuous.
	It doesn't prove that I received anything from them or knew in advance about any hack of the DNC.
	In fact, The claim that the DNC was hacked is false.
	That is because the FBI admitted in my trial premotions that they never inspected the computer servers at the DNC, relying on a report from CrowdStrikes, a third-party independent IT firm.
	The IT report produced by CrowdStrikes was denied to my defense attorneys at trial, but it would ultimately be declassified.
	It matches the testimony of the head of cybersecurity at CloudStrike, Sean Henry, who testified before the House Intelligence Committee that, in fact, he had no proof that the Russians conducted an online hack of the DNC.
	The judge would not allow me to bring expert testimony from Bill Binney, who was a high-level counterintelligence IT expert with the CIA, or produce any of the forensic evidence that would have proved that there was no online hack at the DNC. or produce any of the forensic evidence that would have And lastly, the claim that the Russians were financing an advanced social media campaign.
	They spent about $40,000 in a multi-billion dollar race for the presidency.
	I want to remind you folks to please follow us on Rumble.
	anti-Trump or anti-Hillary or pro-Bernie.
	At different times, they said different things.
	Look to me like Boris and Igor definitely had English as a second language.
	Anyway, that's it for today.
	I want to remind you folks to please follow us on Rumble.
	You can go to the Rumble app and download that now.
	As you can see, we're at rumble.com slash Roger Stone, rumble.com slash rogerstone Remember to hit the notifications after you follow us.
	We're there at 8 p.m.
	Eastern every weeknight.
	Folks, you can also see us at worldviewtube.com.
	That's at four o'clock central and five o'clock eastern.
	So if you don't catch us at worldviewtube, you can catch us later on Rumble.
	Lastly, I have to remind you that, yes, our show is sponsored by the great folks at MyPillow.com.
	Mike Lindell is a great American who deserves our support.
	And I have many favorite products there.
	Go to MyPillow.com.
	And when you do, use promo code STONE.
	That's right, promo code STONE.
	The dog beds, the pet blankets, the super absorbent bath towels, the luxurious bed sheets.
	These are some of the greatest products out there.
	You get deep discounts when you use promo code STONE.
	Mrs. Stone will be very grateful.
	All right, that's it for today's show.
	I'm Roger Stone.
	Thanks for joining us today in the Stone Zone.
	Thanks to our guest, David Schoen, one of the top criminal defense lawyers in the country, on the question of whether President Trump will be incarcerated a few short days from now.
	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.

▲