All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2025 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone
58:07
Update on Andrew & Tristan Tate w/ Lawyer Joe McBride + What will Trump do about J6ers? 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 bestselling 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.
Here to help me break down the political issues of the day is my co-host, the editor-in-chief of Slingshot.News, Troy Smith.
Roger, it's always an honor to be back with you in the Stone Zone.
Troy, that's a great looking necktie.
I see you are really bucking for next year's International Best Dressed list.
Thanks for joining us today.
Of course, Roger, and as always, compliment from you in that regard is the highest honor, so thank you very much.
Very kind.
You know, folks, first a quick word from our commercial sponsor.
The holiday seasons may be over, but the sick season is still in full swing.
From sinus infections and strep throat to lingering upper respiratory issues, the germs from all the holiday travel are still making the rounds.
Now, there's no need to deal with the hassle of sickness.
It's time to start the new year strong, because this compact blue case is your portable, urgent care.
It's stocked with ivermectin, Z-Pak, amoxicillin, and six other essential prescription medicines right there at your fingertips.
Well, the wellness company's medical emergency kit can actually allow you to tackle serious health concerns without worrying about urgent care.
You don't have to get to the emergency room or one of those urgent care facilities.
Kit cuts right through the red tape by allowing you to take control of your own health versus being reactive and inconvenienced during precious family time.
You don't need a gatekeeper because their medical board created a guidebook that outlines common treatments for UTIs, strep throat, bacterial infections, respiratory illnesses, and a lot more.
All it takes is filling out a digital intake form, and then your kit will arrive at your door within one to two weeks.
So travel and enjoy the new year with peace of mind this season.
Order your kit now by going to twc.health slash rstone.
That's twc.health slash rstone.
And use rstone as your promo code to save up to 30% and free shipping.
This is available to USA citizens only.
All right, Troy, we're honored today to have a good friend of mine join the show.
Joe McBride is the founder and chief executive officer of the McBride Law Firm.
His courtroom practice is focused on criminal defense.
Civil litigation and defamation, but outside the courtroom, he's a legal advisor and a great American patriot, supporter of our Constitution, a man outspoken in his advocacy for freedom and all that is righteous.
Joe's widely known for his matters relating to the January 6th events, and he's been fighting for the constitutional rights of many American citizens.
He also, of course, is the lawyer for Andrew and Tristan Tate.
Dozens of news publications and media outlets quote him all the time.
I recently saw him on with Kimberly Guilfoyle.
It was a very, very powerful interview.
I'm very proud to have my friend Joe McBride, attorney at law, Joe McBride, Esquire, join us now.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It is great to see you, as always.
Roger.
I appreciate all the work that you're doing, and it's always an honor to be on.
Thank you so much.
Joe, welcome to the show.
You are looking hale and healthy, I'm happy to say, and a good New Year to you.
The first place I want to focus, of course, is on the potential pardons for those charged in connection with January 6th.
This is something you and I have talked about privately.
And, of course, the president has talked about quite openly.
In recent interviews, he seemed to indicate that these pardons would come early, perhaps as early as the first day that he serves as president.
So tell us what you're hearing and how you think this might go down.
So what I'm hearing, Roger, is it looks like it's going to be a case-by-case basis.
I have...
That's not confirmed.
Those are the whisperings, you know, in the halls of power and through my various connections that I have and in my direct conversations with different people.
That's looking like what it's going to be.
So I've been an open advocate for general pardons since day one, because I believe, based on evidence and speaking with people and all the casework that I've done, that January 6th was a massive entrapment operation.
It should have been avoided.
It could have been avoided.
It was not avoided because they wanted to hurt President Trump, and by extension, all Trump supporters.
Right.
So that's why I have advocated for the general pardon, because I have said and I do believe that the United States government was the worst bad actor on that day.
And any time law enforcement is the core problem, is at the root of the problem, everything that stems forth from that is the fruit of the poisonous tree.
And therefore, all these convictions are based on nonsense.
They should be tossed out.
These good men should come home.
The general pardon is the best way forward.
It doesn't look like President Trump sees it that way.
It looks like he wants to do a case-by-case analysis.
Okay, fine.
That's going to come down to, at least initially, who was violent, who was nonviolent.
It looks like all the nonviolent people are going to be pardoned immediately.
But then you have different cases, like a case like Ryan Nichols, who I represent.
This is a good man, a military veteran living with PTSD. Went to the Capitol on January 6th.
Saw women getting beaten.
Saw Victoria White getting the snot beat out of her by the Metropolitan Police.
Saw Roseanne Boyle.
Get murdered, Roseanne Boylan, get murdered, right?
And he was being sprayed.
People around him were being sprayed.
He picked up spray and he sprayed back at the officers, right?
Is somebody like that, should somebody like that be eligible for a pardon?
My position is unequivocally yes.
Number one, you have a right to defend yourself in this country.
Number two, you have a right to defend others.
So I submit that he's eligible for a pardon.
If President Trump needs to take a look at this, if his team needs to take a look at cases like this, they're going to need to set up a sentencing commission.
Okay, that's fine.
That's going to take time.
So what do you do with people like Ryan Nichols who are currently incarcerated?
He's incarcerated in...
In Beaumont, Texas.
They call it Bloody Beaumont.
It's a horrible, horrible prison.
You gotta get these guys out.
So my hope is that he issues commutations for everybody who's incarcerated, and then he looks at it case by case.
Because let's face the facts here, guys.
The punishment has to fit the crime.
These men were overly prosecuted, overly incarcerated.
No January 6th year should be in jail at this point.
Years have gone by.
Time to let them go home.
Time to look at their cases.
Case by case, fine.
Let them out while you're doing it.
Grant the pardons later.
If that's the way it's going to be.
You know, Joe, the thing I find most shocking is the conditions under which many of these individuals are incarcerated.
There's kind of two parts of it.
One, their due process rights seem to be regularly violated.
There are people who've been incarcerated for three years but without a trial.
Yet the Constitution allows them a speedy trial.
But they don't seem to get that.
And then hearing about the...
Horrific conditions in the D.C. jail, in the D.C. gulag, where you have raw sewage running into some of these cells, inmates being forced to sleep on a wet cement floor.
When they complain, their food is laced with cleaning chemicals which are toxic.
There are a lot of reports of physical violence against inmates who have done nothing to encourage that other than maybe singing the national anthem or praying out loud.
We treat terrorists better than this.
These terms seem to me to violate the Zifa Convention, which we've signed.
How do Merrick Garland and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, not even sure his position is codified in law, by the way, how do they get away with this abuse of American systems?
Okay, they're arrested, they're incarcerated, they're going through the system, but to be forced to live like animals with these kinds of abuses, it's very hard to swallow.
It is very hard to swallow.
It is the vertical integration of power in the federal government.
There is an inadequate system of checks and balances right now.
The president and people who work for him, like Merrick Garland, have had unchecked power because Congress has long refused to do nothing.
Congress often puts on a big show, but in all reality, there's only a few.
There's only about 20 or 30 people in Congress who actually care about the plight of these good men who have been incarcerated.
Everybody else, be it the Democrats or RINOs, they just haven't done anything because they hate these people, just like Joe Biden and Merrick Garland does.
Look, this is the targeted persecution of American citizens, not for what they did on January 6th, but because of who they support, the color of their skin, often their faith in Jesus Christ and what they believe in.
It is unfortunate.
It is wrong.
It is going to go down as a black eye, a black mark on, you know, the constitutional republic that we have lived in for a very long time.
But I think at the end of the day that the Democrats and the rhino establishment Republicans, the uniparty people, underestimated the will of the American citizen to live free or die.
And they underestimated the will of attorneys, people like you, to really get behind these people and say, hey, these are Americans.
They're innocent until proven guilty.
The Constitution affords them due process.
You can't take their finances.
You can't take their freedom.
You can't lock them up indefinitely.
for all this period of time.
And expect that we're going to sit by and do nothing.
So what we saw over the past couple of years was really sort of the coalescing of true patriotic people, be them in media, be them in government, be them in lawyers, to get together and to fight back against this.
And I dare say that if President Trump does pardon these people, that the battle has been won.
We will have withheld them.
We will have taken every hill, every corner.
We will have overcome the evil.
We can't undo what has been done already.
We can't go back in time and change anything.
But what we can do is make sure that it never happens again and we can make sure that we set these people free.
And the quickest and surest way that that happens is through the good man that we just elected to be the 47th president of these United States.
I can't think of anything more heinous than denying the basic human rights of someone incarcerated in the United States, regardless of what their crime is.
We're supposed to be a civilized country.
We don't do that.
Troy, next question for Joe McBride to you.
Absolutely.
Sir, my question to you is about the statute of limitations on this and the fact that, you know, I just have a question.
Is the DOJ still going after people that they claim committed crimes on January 6th?
How long will that continue?
Is it a five-year thing?
Is it indefinite?
Under the next Trump administration, do you think that he will curtail efforts by the DOJ to go after these individuals that are currently seemingly still under threat?
Troy, that's a good question.
So the DOJ, I believe Biden just announced within the past week that they're going to look for 200 more arrests before Trump even gets in.
They have been arresting people left and right.
Very recently, I get calls two, three, four times a week from people saying the FBI is at my door.
They've come to my place of business.
They've raided my home.
I'm in jail.
They're continuing to do this.
The statute of limitations isn't really at issue right now because this stuff is still right.
So they're looking at it.
Will President Trump come in and change the DOJ's policy toward this?
Unequivocally, yes.
That job is going to land on Pam Bondi, the incoming Attorney General of the United States.
The first question, what do we do in the cases where people who have been recently arrested but not indicted, they're not incarcerated, what do we do?
They've got to decline to prosecute those cases.
They've got to say that the era of prosecuting January 6th protesters is over.
All outstanding and newly arrested people, their cases are dismissed with prejudice right now, and then they have to turn to the pardons and to the other things that are going on.
But is Joe Biden's DOJ continuing to arrest people, even though they know that Trump is going to go in?
Yes, there are arrests happening today.
Arrests have happened yesterday, and they've even announced that they're going to do more.
It is unfortunate, but this is indicative of the madness that we have seen from this anti-American, very communist president, who on one hand is persecuting American citizens of what they believe in, while on the other hand, he's pardoning people like Hunter Biden, death row inmates, while on the other hand, he's pardoning people like Hunter Biden, death row inmates, convicted terrorists, so So when you juxtapose these two realities, we see that we have a president who's coming in who loves this country, we have a president going out who hates this country, that's
And the proof is in the pudding.
You can find that by their actions.
And President Trump, I know that he'll do the right thing going forward.
Joe, kind of a difficult question.
Obviously, many, many people in the country, many supporters of Donald Trump, think that those who violated the law and knowingly did so during the Russian collusion hoax or during the Ukrainian impeachment hoax or in connection with the Fed's surrection on January 6th should be held legally responsible.
Having gone through the meat grinder of the D.C. court system in that district and watching the case of Michael Sussman, a very curious case in which John Durham, the special counsel, decided to charge the guy who drove the getaway car for double parking while he let the bank robbers get away.
And even Mr. Sussman could not be convicted in the District of Columbia where Virtually every judge is a partisan.
Even those who are Republicans are virulently anti-Trump.
The judges are, as we saw in my case, exceedingly political.
Don't hide it.
and the chances of getting a fair, impartial jury are virtually impossible.
So how can we rebalance the scales of justice and go back to a one-tiered justice system if those responsible for crimes such as treason, and I could make a case for treason in the case of John Brennan, for example, the CIA director, and the Russian collusion hoax.
How can we expect justice from the D.C. Circuit?
It's a great question.
It's very hard.
The D.C. Circuit, it was set up and has been set up to...
To act the way that it's acting right now.
There's a very strong sense of a uniparty there.
There's not a strong sense of justice at all.
You have to diminish the strength of the DC jury pool.
How do you do that?
I don't know.
But in terms of the jurors, the president has to appoint as many judges as he can, get lots of those judges into the DC bench.
Another way to do is to reduce the importance of Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. shouldn't have absolute power over the rest of the United States.
It's a relatively small, relatively insignificant place in terms of numbers.
So how does it have this autocratic power over all the rest of the 50 states?
It's madness.
The way that you do that is by beginning to try cases.
In other areas, in other jurisdictions across this country, you get better judges, you get better jury pools, and you reduce the significance of Washington, D.C. If any other jurisdiction can attach itself to a case that's D.C.-related, the Department of Justice should make sure that those cases are tried in those areas.
D.C. has grown too powerful at a centralized power there in a way that's incompatible with the Constitution and the three separate branches of government.
You've got to appeal that level.
You got to peel the onion back step by step by step, and you have to reduce the power in D.C. The issue with doing that is the swamp.
The swamp is very convenient for everybody to be in close quarters, to have so much money, and to get this stuff done through smoke and mirrors and backroom deals, the way that things have been getting done there for a long time.
You got to shine a very bright light into that situation.
You got to have enough people who are going to be accountable, going to be open and honest about that.
Is that reality?
I'm not sure, Roger, honestly, that it can be done.
What we need to do is begin that process, and what we need to do is get assurances from somebody like J.D. Vance, who may run for president next.
If President Trump begins this process of really draining the swamp again, will you continue it?
If President Trump begins this process of persecuting people who have acted treasonously toward this country or done other things in D.C., will you continue this?
Or will this die out in four years?
We need assurances from the future leadership going forward that they're going to be willing to carry the torch on these issues.
And I think you've got to start with that almost immediately.
You know, Joe, one idea I think has always been a good one is that if you're charged with a federal crime, you should stand trial in the jurisdiction in which you live.
Even if your indictment came from a grand jury in Washington.
Now, I thought it was very interesting in the so-called Trump documents case that special counsel Jack Smith had his grand jury proceedings take place in DC. Then he played the audio of those proceedings for a Florida grand jury.
Which had no opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses, kind of a basic within the grand jury, in order to obtain the indictments he got later dismissed against President Donald Trump.
How is this allowed?
It's entirely illegal what he's done.
Look, in D.C. you have FISA courts, you have all these other ways that the D.C. government and prosecutors...
Look to circumvent the Constitution because there's no check.
There's no, you know, nobody's really cranking down to them and saying, hey, you can't do this.
So he took it a step too far.
He overplayed his hand.
He did it in Florida and the word got out about it, right?
And number one, it sheds light on the corruption in D.C. and how far unethical prosecutors are willing to go in their pursuit of injustice.
And number two, when he did it in Florida, you know, the Florida court, they got their initial indictment, but the judge there shut him down.
He did it and they did it because they thought that they were going to win.
They thought that they had this in the bag and that their level of corruption was going to carry the day.
Thank God.
I believe that God himself, the prayers and the will of the American people, a good judge down there in Florida, changed that.
And that was one of the really first big victories that President Trump had leading up to the election.
Is what Jack Smith did legal?
No.
He did it because he was in a position where he could do it and not suffer any consequence because of it through qualified immunity.
He did it because he had the okay for Merrick Garland and Joe Biden, but he overplayed his hand.
It didn't work out for him, and it's a good thing that something like this happened because it exposed the very corrupt practices that D.C. prosecutors use in order to achieve indictments and convictions, so on and so forth.
Bad thing that had happened, good thing that it was exposed, and an even better thing that we're talking about it now, and that President Trump was able to beat back that malicious prosecution in Florida in that very, very bad case.
As you know, Joe, Judge Cannon dismissed the so-called documents case against Donald Trump based on the fact that there is no provision in law for Jack Smith's position.
Secondarily, he was...
Never confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
He was not a sitting U.S. attorney.
Thirdly, constitutionally, no member of the executive branch can be unfireable by the president, yet the way Merrick Garland structured his appointment, he is unfireable.
And lastly, there's no appropriations, there's no funding for his witch hunt.
This same argument was brought in my case by one of the witnesses.
It was wrongly decided by the trial judge.
It was rubber stamped by the D.C. Circuit.
Big surprise there.
We ran out of time to get that case in front of the Supreme Court.
It's funny to watch Andrew Weissman, the single most corrupt prosecutor in U.S. history, dismissing this argument as if it is nothing.
But it's funny how the left loves federal judges Whenever they rule the way they want them to, but when a federal judge rules differently than they believe, Judge Cannon, well, they're incompetent.
They're unqualified.
They're compromised.
You know, it is outrageous.
It's hard for me to believe, for example, the kind of attacks on the Supreme Court by some in the executive branch.
That's unprecedented in our country.
Richard Nixon...
Claimed that his famous White House tapes were his personal property, and he had no obligation to turn them over.
The American people disagreed with that, I think because of the whipped up fake news media hysteria, and the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn them over.
By the way, I think that was wrongly decided too, but put that question aside.
Now, Merrick Garland refuses to turn over the audio.
of Special Counsel Robert Herr's interview with Vice President Joe Biden, offering instead a transcript.
Well, Nixon offered a transcript, and that was unacceptable to the courts and the Congress and the American people.
Why should Merrick Garland not be compelled To turn over the actual audio of Joe Biden's interview with Special Counsel Herr, because I'd like to get to the bottom as to why Joe Biden, in their own report, clearly violated, willfully violated the law with the retention of documents when he was vice president and a U.S. senator and had no such authority, yet he escaped prosecution.
Your thoughts?
Well, they want to conceal the actual audio and give the transcript because the transcript doesn't allow...
The listener to the audio to appreciate the nuances that can happen in conversation.
We know that there are a lot of things that are said during conversations.
You can achieve an objective by things that are said and things that are unsaid.
There's nuances, there's code, transcripts can be edited, so on and so forth.
So you don't want, you know, Merrick Garland doesn't want, he's protecting Joe Biden, he doesn't want the general public, he doesn't want the courts to see that because obviously it's going to be damning to Joe Biden.
Based on precedent, You just cited what happened with Richard Nixon.
With President Nixon, should he, should Merrick Garland be forced to turn over the audio?
The answer is an unequivocally yes.
Of course he should.
But what has happened since that time?
You have had, you have in D.C., they, you know, the D.C. bench sort of believes that it can set a tone for the rest of the country, right?
So it says, look, we have this very secular, left-leaning establishment way of interpreting the constitutional laws going forward.
So if you're not on board with that, we're going to call you in Florida incompetent or in Texas incompetent if you're not sort of following the religious edict that's coming from D.C. This is all about...
The way and the methodology of thinking that protects the swamp and that protects the establishment.
So if there is a way to make sure that the actual audio doesn't get out because it's going to be damning to Joe Biden and Merrick Garland and to the Democrats, they're going to protect it.
I saw this repeatedly in the January 6th cases where the 1984 Bail Reform Act, all the law up until January 5th of 2021 was interpreted one way.
All of a sudden, on January 7th and January 8th, it wasn't a question of our...
Are these people a flight risk?
No.
Are they dangerous to themselves or society?
No.
If the answer is not a flight risk, not dangerous, every January 6th should have went home.
But when we press the judges on this and we say, hey, you have years and years of legislation and jurisprudence here that you must follow.
Why aren't you following it?
They said January 6th is a dark day.
It is an attack on democracy.
We have to interpret things differently because these people are different in what they did.
The law was not about the crime.
It was about, were these people...
Dangerous or flight risk?
So they interpreted the law differently and created different jurisprudence in order to suit their political needs.
That's the same thing Merrick Garland is doing here with the audio versus the transcript.
It's something that the deep state and the deep court has been doing since the time of Nixon, and it continues till today.
And we got to make sure that these people are held accountable.
There needs to be oversight.
There needs to be ethics.
There needs to be accountability.
Statistics.
Are these judges on the federal bench actually...
So, to your point, is it wrong what they're doing with the audio?
Yes.
Can they do it?
Yes, obviously they are doing it.
Can it be undone?
I think that's through legislation and that's through oversight.
Troy, next question for Joe McBride.
Yes, thank you.
I just wanted to ask, we talked a little bit about the harsh and inhumane treatment that a lot of these prisoners have undergone, and I think a lot of people would even say that the charges, particularly on the nonviolent individuals, despite the fact that they're going to be pardoned, is there going to be any legal action launched by these individuals to kind of get compensation for this?
I mean, it would appear to me that this goes...
Above and beyond any kind of normal treatment.
And these people's lives have been permanently altered.
When we talk about some of the people that have been injured, some of the injuries suffered in these prisons, it's horrifying.
So will there be a counteraction to kind of get compensation for these people for the hell they've been put through?
It's going to be very, very hard.
I believe...
My gut, my instinctual sort of forecast for this situation is that they're going to split the baby here, and they're not going to fight so much on the pardons, but they're going to fight on the pocketbook to protect the institutions.
Number one...
The federal government, anytime you're suing the federal government under federal law, you have to use federal law.
So why am I saying that?
Because the federal government has enshrined and articulated laws to protect the institutions from being sued in situations specifically like this.
So number one, you've got to deal with this whole schmorgensburg of administrative law.
You have to overcome the PRLA, which has to do with prison conduct and using the grievance system that doesn't work in the prison.
And they set all these administrative hurdles to make sure that suing them in federal court is often difficult.
And even if you do overcome the administrative hurdles, then you have to deal with statute of limitations, which is often 90 days or one year when it comes to intentional conduct by the federal government or by a federal officer.
It's four years down the road.
So in certain cases where I've tried to sue for certain clients, we've run into statute of limitations problems out of the gate.
My argument has been, hey, look, these guys have been in jail.
They haven't been in a position to sue.
We're just getting the information now.
We could not have possibly sued a couple years ago.
The injury was ongoing.
This guy just got out.
We're just learning about the medical records now.
They don't care, right?
And because they don't care, it's going to be very, very hard for that to happen.
I heard word of some class actions and some other things happening.
I don't think that that stuff's going to work because this stuff turns on individual conduct and how an individual used the grievance system, did not use the administrative stuff.
So let me dial back one second.
Should they be able to sue?
Yes.
Were these people harmed?
Yes.
Have they suffered injuries?
Yes.
Are the injuries the fault of the federal government or the institutions that they were in?
100% yes.
Are they going to be able to sue?
Can they sue?
Sure, they can sue.
Are they going to be able to win?
I'd say in 9.9% of every case, they're going to lose because of the administrative hurdles and because of the And because of the very real fact that the D.C. bench hates these people and is very much against them.
Well, prosecutors, generally speaking, have immunity under our system, so it's unclear how they could bring such an action.
We do want to talk about your representation of Andrew and Tristan Tate.
We'll get to that in just a minute.
A few more political questions, though, because, well, you know what you're talking about, and we're happy to have you on the show today.
Many of the January 6th detainees were charged under 1615. I don't know the exact law, but it came from the Enron case.
Now, Enron, of course, is a case in which prosecutor Andrew Weissman was unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He destroyed not only the Enron Company, but he also destroyed Arthur Anderson, their tax accountants.
He continues to point to this case as if it is the gold standard of federal prosecution when the judge in the case excoriated him for prosecutorial misconduct.
Explain the...
Impact of the court decision, which essentially did not allow the use of this 1615 law.
I think they have that close to right.
And whether judges have essentially just overlooked it anyway.
So it's 18 U.S.C. 1512, subsection C2. You were close, for sure.
That is the obstruction charge that stems forth from the Enron case.
During that case, people destroyed documents in anticipation of litigation.
And the court said, hey, if you do that, that's obstruction.
You're going to be on the hook for it.
So it has to do with destroying evidence, destroying papers, and anticipation of litigation.
It was used wrongfully against January Sixers.
This was the dragnet charge that was used to make sure that everybody got on the hook for the first three years of these prosecutions.
And we said since Jump Street, this is wrong.
This charge has nothing to do with the kind and type of conduct that took place on January 6th.
The legislators didn't intend it that way.
The court has never ruled on it that way.
This charge should not be used.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
They used the charge because, again, they could do it.
They were trying to reshape and sort of take this charge and repurpose it specifically for January 6th.
The D.C. District Court and the D.C. Appellate Court, Court of Appeals, turned their—they were willfully blind to this.
We filed motions in all these cases year after year, month after month, week after week, and the courts disagreed with us.
The courts sided with...
The Department of Justice.
And the big thing about this obstruction charge is that it carried a 20-year sentence.
So you had guys who just were walking through the Capitol, and because they had a presence in the Capitol, they were a part of the mob, and the mob was there to obstruct.
So they took that obstruction charge and said, you're facing 20 years just on this charge alone.
Never mind the 10 other charges that we've got against you.
Take a plea now.
And put it behind you.
So in many cases, you look at the Q out in Shaman, like Jacob Chansley.
He took a deal, four and a half years or something in jail, and the guy was invited into the building.
It should have never happened, but they did it because they...
They threatened him with 20 years on this one charge, and when you looked at the other charges, well, he could have done 40 and 50 years.
So he said, look, 40 years sounds good, and he went to jail.
That is a grave and gross injustice.
It is a miscarriage of justice.
It should have never happened.
It happened to him, and it happened to a bunch of other guys as well.
It gave the jury a very easy way to convict these people by saying that they were a part of a mob who was there to obstruct.
An election, even though the obstruction charge had nothing to do with their conduct.
So you fast forward a few years later, and this case goes up to the Supreme Court in the Fisher v.
United States case, and the Supreme Court says, hey, guess what, Department of Justice, you got it wrong.
This should have never happened.
The D.C. bench, the district court is wrong.
Court of Appeals is wrong.
And you're all wrong.
You can't use this case anymore.
So those charges begin to fall away.
These guys are now being let out of jail.
But here's the thing.
The process is the punishment.
The irreversible damage has been done.
These men have been canceled.
They've lost their family.
They've lost their freedom.
They've lost their health.
Horrible things have happened to them.
They have PTSD. They have to sue.
They're going to try to sue.
They're probably going to lose.
It's a horrible, horrible thing.
The DOJ did it because they knew that they could get away with it.
And to add insult to injury, you have...
The very conduct that the 1512 obstruction charge addresses, the destroying of documents, the January 6th committee destroys all their documents.
Merrick Garland hides audio and obstructs.
He says, here, here's a transcript instead of the audio.
That's the kind of obstruction that we're talking about.
So again, it's rules for thee, but not for me.
We will actually obstruct and hurt you via obstruction, and then we'll charge you with it and threaten you with 20 or 30 years in jail just for your...
As you know, Joe, there's been a lot of controversy over the video coverage of the events of January 6th, while Speaker Johnson has released some video.
And that video has been very impactful.
You see some outrageous things.
He still has not released all of it.
Do you have an opinion as to why some of it continues to be held back?
My opinion is that none of it should be held back at this point.
So much video has been released.
There is no...
Look, the United States Capitol is a public building.
The idea that there are national security needs or there are security issues related to January 6th, why stuff can't be released anymore, that's been the underlying argument since day one.
That's just ridiculous.
It doesn't apply to this situation.
and the idea that you'll allow innocent people to sit in jail or that you'll allow a cover-up to happen you know were there agents at the capitol yes how many were there well we don't know we believe that there were hundreds of them how can we find that out we can find that out by releasing all the video farming it to the general public letting the online sleuths look at it all and we can figure this stuff out in a month's time Why are you doing that?
You're hiding something, right?
And the greater evil here is the suppression of the truth and the fact that these good men have went to jail.
During what I believe to be a gigantic entrapment operation.
So I'm grateful to the extent that Speaker Johnson has released what he's released.
But I demand accountability that he released everything that he promised.
And if he hasn't released it, then he better give us a very well thought out and long, comprehensive explanation as to why this has not happened.
And he should select X amount of defense attorneys to go in there to look at this footage and say, okay, you know what, there is justification.
Absent that kind of thing, the job just hasn't been done, and I, along with a long list of other people, demand full accountability and the full release of these tapes until we have a proper justification as to why they should not be released.
As you know, FBI Director Christopher Wray consistently evaded answering the direct question of how many undercover government or FBI agents were in the crowd that day.
We now know from an inspector general's report that it was at least 26. This guy couldn't be leaving office soon enough.
Yesterday, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who's been in the Senate since 1996, said that after his interview with Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi, he wondered whether she could separate her constitutional responsibilities to her loyalty.
to President Donald Trump.
Frankly, I question Senator Durbin's ability to separate his constitutional duties for advice and consent, given his loyalty to Chuck Schumer and the Democrats.
He's a Chicago pal.
I doubt he could withstand a vigorous investigation, in all honesty.
Appointment of Pan Bondi, who, as a Floridian, I can tell you, was a terrific attorney general in this state.
Pam Bondi is a fantastic choice by President Donald Trump.
Look, she did a fantastic job in Florida, tough on crime, fair and equitable in terms of how she prosecuted her cases there and ran that office.
She's going to do a fantastic job in Washington, D.C. as the Attorney General of the United States.
Dick Durbin's comments are partisan.
They're not based on any scintilla.
Truth.
This is a guy, as you have pointed out, he's a part of the Chicago Democratic machine.
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw a thousand pound rock.
Lots of hypocrisy there for people like him and Elizabeth Warren.
You look at their record on...
Prison reform.
You look at their record on criminal justice reform up until January 6th.
These were advocates against the civil rights abuses that have taken place in jail.
I cited Dick Durbin, his comments, and Elizabeth Warren's comments in many of my motions and saying, hey, look, these people were advocating to make sure that people don't get tortured in jail, but they're silent on January 6th.
Why?
Because they're partisan hacks, right?
And that's the type of person that Dick Durbin is.
He's a partisan hack.
He's never going to give Pam Bondi a fair shake.
No surprise to anything that he has said here.
Doesn't want any real accountability for things that took place in prisons for January 6th or on January 6th.
I expect him and people like him to be a roadblock to the incoming administration and to the Fair Administration of Justice in D.C. Predictable.
You know, what else can you say about the guy?
Just not a good person.
Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Mitch McConnell, these are some of the worst.
You know, hypocrites, part of the unit party, who are in Washington, and I look forward to the day where they are nothing more than a long, distant memory.
All right, let's get to the topic that so many of our watchers and viewers are interested in, and that is Andrew and Tristan Tate.
I am a longtime fan of the Tates, because while they preach self-responsibility, They preach physical fitness.
They preach sobriety.
They preach discipline.
They preach self-respect for young men.
They preach education.
They preach reverence to God.
And this is why I think they've been persecuted.
Now, there was news recently that one of the major cases against them was dropped.
But as I understand it, that doesn't mean they're yet home free.
And then yesterday we had the very sad news that their grandmother passed, but they were unable to visit her in her dying days because of this ongoing persecution.
I also must say I'm very excited by the idea of Andrew Tate seeking the position of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I think he could shake up the political system there.
Tell us what's going on with the Tates.
Again, Roger, really appreciate all your ongoing coverage with regard to the Andrew and Tristan saga.
You've been on the Tate side, the right side of things since day one.
Even a couple years ago when it was a very unpopular place to be because you understand precisely what has happened with these two gentlemen.
They are innocent.
They have been persecuted and prosecuted not for anything that they've done, but because of their message of male empowerment, traditional values, so on and so forth.
The deep state hates them because they have the ability to sway the hearts and minds of young men and to get young men to take care of themselves.
To believe in God, to believe in country, to eat meat, and to put the soy away, and to be strong traditional men.
And look, the deep state obviously doesn't like that.
They want to neuter all of us and make sure that we all act like women.
And Andrew and Tristan are very much against that.
With regard to what has happened in their case, well, it's just another example of the hypocrisy of the deep state and the mainstream media.
Inability to fair and equitably cover what has happened to them.
For years, they have been labeled falsely.
They have been slandered and defamed as human traffickers.
And they are, in fact, not human traffickers.
They have never been human traffickers.
This is evidenced by the defamation case that we have filed and that is proceeding now through discovery in Palm Beach Court of Law.
And this is also evidenced by the fact...
That the first file, as they call it in Romania, or the first indictment, has been dismissed.
So the human trafficking charges against Andrew and Tristan Tate have been dismissed by the Romanian court of law.
And that is a massive, huge thing, because they are no longer being prosecuted for human trafficking, right?
That should be international news, but the mainstream media doesn't care about it because it doesn't suit their narrative.
Had they been charged in a second file or a second indictment?
Yes.
Why is the government over there doing that?
Because the government is not concerned with justice.
The government isn't concerned with fairness.
The government is only concerned with getting a win.
So they have this new indictment based on new charges and new allegations, just like they did with President Trump.
If we can't get you here, we're going to try to get you there.
It's based on nothingness.
We're going to win that case as well.
But again, the process is the punishment.
It's a way to silence them.
It's a way to threaten them.
It's a way to limit their geographical movements so they can't be as effective globally as they could be if they were unleashed.
But the important thing here is that Andrew and Tristan, we have maintained and they have maintained that they are unequivocally innocent of human trafficking crimes.
And those crimes have been tossed out by the Romanian court.
So boom, that is now over.
So you look to what is Andrew doing now?
He says, you know what?
I'm going to run for...
A lot of people are sick and tired of the direction the United Kingdom has taken.
I have a strong message.
I have a good message.
I'm going to put it out there and see how people respond.
He puts it out there.
And it's overwhelmingly positive, their response.
Millions and millions and millions of retweets, millions and millions of conversations taking place all over the internet.
And if you look at the prime minister there now, and if you juxtapose him against Andrew, right, I think most people in that country would very much prefer to have a strong, principled man who stands on values, who believes that, you know, the United Kingdom is a great and exceptional place the United Kingdom is a great and exceptional place and that it can change course going forward and that they can save the United Kingdom over there, as opposed to this globalist maniac who's in there, this socialist, communist nutjob, who's looking to just make the situation over
who's looking to just Andrew's interested in advocates of free speech, advocates of traditional values.
It's a strong emphasis on those things.
It is going to be a good and wonderful thing going forward.
A lot of buzz around what he's doing.
I sat and I've spoken with him about it.
I said, you know, are you serious about this?
Do you want to make this happen?
And he's like, I've never been more serious about anything in my life.
I actually do want to run.
I think I can win.
The people are...
I'm excited to see what happens going forward.
Andrew Tate at the helm of the United Kingdom over there on Downing Street.
I mean, look, we got Donald Trump for president over here.
That shows me that anything is possible in politics, and I'm excited to see what's going to happen going forward.
Well, Joe, you might tell Andrew if he's looking for an experienced political strategist who's willing to work pro bono, I'm available because I would love to help.
I think it's exciting.
It's also imaginative because in the day of the Internet, well, he can campaign from wherever he is.
It is outrageous to me.
That the brothers have endured this kind of persecution.
You're right.
It's not because they've done anything wrong.
It's because they stand up to the conventional narrative of the woke left.
And it is outrageous what has been done to them.
What are the current restrictions on their ability to travel?
Where must they stay?
I'm just thankful that they're not incarcerated.
But what are their current restrictions?
Kristen's able to travel most of Romania.
Andrew is not able to travel as much.
He's allowed to go back and forth.
To critical appointments, go back and forth to court.
Other than that, he's been confined to the area where he lives in Bucharest.
He's confined to home, which is very unfortunate because he was free to travel, and now he's not free to travel.
Look, it's all gamesmanship with them.
You know, look, he's a very, very strong sort of spiritual, mental acuity.
This is a guy who's unbreakable.
You're not going to be able to break him.
So he just goes, "Okay, I can't do what I have to do outside anymore.
I'm going to go home and I'm going to focus on this." The guy doesn't miss a beat.
Is he allowed to travel?
No.
Should he be allowed to travel?
Yes.
Is this unfair?
It's very unfair.
We're grateful that Tristan's able to do some more traveling and he's able to move around a little bit more freely than Andrew is.
I know Tristan, along with all of us, It's the same for Andrew.
It's going to happen.
Justice will be served in the end.
Andrew is willing to suffer whatever he needs to suffer in order to make sure the truth comes to light.
I think that we're not very far away from that happening at all.
That second file, that second indictment is going to fail.
They're going to beat it back.
Our Florida case is progressing.
That's scheduled to go to trial in September of this year.
It's only a matter of time before the truth comes to light.
I know that he's...
Invigorated by the situation in the United States, seeing, you know, Trump's massive victory over the deep state.
And the litany of slanders and defamation against him.
So it's going to be another big victory, if not an even bigger victory for Andrew and Tristan.
But they're going to have to suffer a little bit more until they get there.
It's suffering for a righteous cause.
And we're all going to continue to support him and to fight for him and for Tristan in every way that we can until V-Day, until victory, Roger.
You know...
Joe, I befriended Javier Malay when he was just thought to be an eccentric economist with no political prospect of becoming the leader of Argentina.
That is one of the most improbable victories in world political history.
And you see the results for the Argentine people, where their economy is surging, where the country is safer.
So the election of Andrew Tate is not as far-fetched as some people may think, particularly when you have a current prime minister who's opposed to any formal inquiry into these grooming gangs of immigrants who are violently raping children.
This is one of the two major parties in the UK. It is shocking.
To say the least.
All right, Troy, we have just a few more minutes here.
Another question about the Tates and their fight for Joe McBride.
Absolutely.
So there's been a fight, and it's kind of interesting.
Going into this interview, I pulled a couple headlines of Andrew Tate, and I had to go to secondary search engines such as Bing and DuckDuckGo to find articles about it because it's heavily suppressed on Google.
And we know also that the Tates have both been banned from Facebook meta platforms.
My question to you, sir, is with the recent announcement that meta is kind of taking back some of the...
The content restriction policies that they've had and their censorship policies.
Will the Tates join Facebook and will they take action to kind of combat the censorship?
Because I'm seeing it already that the Googles of the world, they're trying to prevent people from seeing that Mr. Tate is running for prime minister.
That's a great question.
Let me be very, very clear, crystal clear on this issue.
The litmus test for the truthfulness, the veracity of Mark Zuckerberg's statements regarding the end of censorship on meta platforms such as Instagram and Facebook is going to be, will you let Andrew and Tristan Tate back on?
You have other people like Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, other people, sure.
But when it comes to Andrew Tate, the most...
Googled man in the world, one of the most influential people on the internet.
Will you let him back on?
And the answer has to be yes.
And not only is it a yes, it has to be you need to do it today.
It needs to be done yesterday.
If your position is, look, we are Meta, we are Facebook, we are Instagram.
We understand that there has been a shift in all the things that Mark Zuckerberg said in his statement.
Okay, fine.
We like the sound of that.
You're saying that you got it wrong.
You say that you got it halfway wrong, whatever it's going to be, but you want to correct yourself going forward, and you want to make yourself known as a free speech platform that's analogous to X, formerly known as Twitter.
Well, then you got to do what X, formerly known as Twitter, has already done.
You got to let Andrew Tate on.
You got to let Tristan Tate on.
Look, if you let Andrew Tate on, he's going to campaign across Facebook and across Meta.
He's focused on his race in the United Kingdom for prime minister.
That's going to be what he's talking about.
You let Tristan on, he's going to be talking about a bunch of cool things, great suits.
He's going to be posting Bugattis in $5 million cars all over Instagram.
He's going to be posting his very James Bond jet-setting life.
Let these guys back on.
Let the world have a taste of what true freedom is.
And you can't, Mark Zuckerberg, you can't say Meta is a free speech platform if it does not include Andrew and Tristan Tate.
That is the litmus test.
Be a man of your word.
Don't write checks you can't cash.
And make sure Andrew and Tristan Tate are restated immediately.
Look, I couldn't feel more strongly about that.
I continue to be banned for life on Facebook.
At the same time, there are five Roger Stones there and they are selling crypto and offering people jobs.
Folks, don't fall for it.
That is not me.
I'm not selling any crypto.
I have no presence whatsoever.
Joe, I'm going to be watching you on this issue because I'd like my free speech rights back on Facebook and on Instagram where I had very substantial followings before I was banned without any explanation.
All right, I'm afraid that we are out of time.
Friends, if you're looking for an attorney, an advocate, someone who will really fight for you, someone who's not worried about his next case or what the judge thinks of him, Someone who will adhere to the rule of law, but give you the absolute best effort to represent your legal interests and fight for your freedom and justice.
Well, go to the McBride Law Firm.
Joe McBride is a fighter, a man of his word, a great man when it comes to courage and his tenacity in fighting for his clients.
Joe, thank you so much for joining us today in the Stone Zone.
Thank you, Roger.
God bless.
All right, Troy, that kind of does it for us today.
I want to remind folks that you can see the Stone Zone every day at 4 o'clock Central.
5 o'clock Eastern on WorldViewTube.com.
That's WorldViewTube.com.
And if you, well, you missed the show there, you have a second opportunity to see us at 8 p.m.
Eastern on Rumble.
To do so, go to Rumble, download the Rumble app to your phone, and then go to the Stone Zone page on Rumble.
There you see it.
It's Rumble.com.
Roger Stone.
Click on that little green follow button.
Set yourself a notification so you don't miss the show.
Thank you for joining us today.
Thank you so much for your support, for our sponsors, The Wellness Company.
And until tomorrow, God bless you and Godspeed.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: 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